So! Despite the fact that they watch too much television, don't like Russell Crowe, and think skinny, nerdy guys like David Tennant are sexy (they also loooove RDJ and Fillion, in their defense),I spend a lot of time over at Pajiba. It's a fun site, and keeps me largely up-to-date on movie goings-on. Anyway.
In honor and memory of a former Pajiban, the site hosts an annual Cannonball Read. Basically, people "sign up" to read books (I think we're shooting for 52?) and write reviews of them. And then the site donates money to AlabamaPink's son's college fund. Sounds kinda cool, right? I thought so ... I thought, "Hey. I read a lot of books. I'm always (lazily) trying to find things to practice writing about. And this is for a good cause!" So, I'm signed on. Seeing as there is a new, small person in my life, I'm not entirely sure I can get through 52 books this year, but it's possible. I checked out three from the library yesterday.
So, stay tuned for book reviews! Who knows, maybe you'll see something interesting. :) You know, for those 2 people who still check this site sometimes.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Proposed:
That those members of our society who are so inclined embark upon a national campaign to ignore a certain family of individuals who hail from the northernmost state of our country. This family of individuals (who will not be named) are most known and represented by the matriarch of the family, who is ostensibly involved in political activities; however, these people are little more than the latest in a long line of "reality celebrities," and as such, do not deserve the attention that we heap upon them.
To the media: stop writing about them. To the rest of us: stop reading about them. Stop watching things about them on television and the internet. Stop commenting about them. Please pass this message on.
IF WE IGNORE THEM LONG ENOUGH, MAYBE THEY WILL GO AWAY.
To the media: stop writing about them. To the rest of us: stop reading about them. Stop watching things about them on television and the internet. Stop commenting about them. Please pass this message on.
IF WE IGNORE THEM LONG ENOUGH, MAYBE THEY WILL GO AWAY.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Us vs. them
Do you believe that we are all individuals? Like, really believe it? Or do you think that maybe, it's more likely that many of us are carefully, calculatedly individuals, having chosen to fit, more or less, into one of many molds of individuality so that we have people with whom we can identify, and friends with whom to "be individual"? So, my type of individual versus your type of individual?
That's how I feel most of the time. I was an outcast at a small school in a small town from the first grade through the eighth grade. When I got to high school, I finally found friends. This is not going to turn into a post about the recent social issue of bullying. I will keep my opinions to myself, but just know that boy, do I have them. No, the point that I'm trying to make (probably mostly for myself) here is that I question whether or not anyone who has been labeled "different" can ever truly escape that. They may become happy, productive, successful, or even famous, but I would argue that they will still go through life struggling against feeling excluded.
The question is whether or not that problem exists merely in their own heads, or in the greater reality, or some combination of both. I know that, for me, it's probably a combination. Even though I spent high school and college with a good group of close friends, and even though I now have a wonderful, loving husband and a moderately successful life, I would say that in the last 10 years or so, making/finding really close friends has become increasingly difficult. Part of that is my (our) fault: we have moved cross-country twice now to further our careers. We have lived and worked in different places, which makes meaningful social interaction difficult, not least of which because most people attach their own dislike of driving to us. We, on the other hand, are more than happy to drive 30 minutes if it means hanging out with fun people doing something we enjoy. But we're weird like that, I guess.
The problem, too, is exacerbated by social media. Yes, I know you've heard this rant before. It's hard hearing about the fun things your group of friends back in [insert state here] is doing that you obviously cannot partake of. But harder still is hearing about something fun that the group of people you sometimes hang out with nearby did that you somehow missed out on. Maybe at age 35 I'm not supposed to care anymore. Oops. Guess my growth is stunted, since it still makes me curl up like a little child and bawl for about 5 minutes (something I actually didn't do much of when I was a child and really was excluded from pretty much everything, actually. I believe in making up for lost time).
I think that the problem starts in one's own head and extends into the greater world. I think that, for me, I spent so long learning how to function on my own, or with a very small group of friends (which I do have, but they live far away, yes, my own fault) that I ... I don't know, give off a vibe? Do people look at me and think "Oh, she doesn't need us"? With my self-esteem I tend to assume that it is more likely people think I am any combination of the following: loud, obnoxious, not funny, uncool, rude, etc. etc. but that doesn't explain why we (my husband and I) both feel very isolated, because he, at least, is the nicest person on the planet, and I don't understand how anyone could not like him. Maybe they have no respect for that guy who puts up with that insufferable woman.
The truth is that my self-confidence isn't actually that bad. More often what I assume is that those other people are merely part of a different "group of individuals," and that I (of course) am the true individual who does not fit in. And thereagain, I think that's something that has come about independent of me. Sam in high school and college prided herself on being different from everyone. She didn't seek it out, exactly ... she just was, and back then that seemed to still gain her friends and admirers. These days, though, adults seem to have different values, and suddenly, Samantha finds herself just wanting to be liked. It's a reversion, actually, back to grade school, when little Sammi (ugh) just wanted to fit in. The difference is that the goals are somewhat at odds. I really like being myself. I'm a work in progress, a practicing human, as I like to say. And I'm fine with what I like, what I think (and what I think about), how I dress, and so on. But I still want to be liked, and have friends who call on a Friday and say "Hey, what are you doing tonight?" or write on my Facebook wall that they're just checking in to see how I'm doing (although at 8 mos. pregnant I am a bit tired of the question "How are you feeling?"), or post a funny picture of something inane we all did last weekend.
I just want to know what I'm doing wrong. Because all we have in our own lives is ourselves, right? We are the constant. Therefore experience would lead us to believe that, if the same thing seems to happen to us over and over again, it must be me, right?
Nobody really likes being alone.
That's how I feel most of the time. I was an outcast at a small school in a small town from the first grade through the eighth grade. When I got to high school, I finally found friends. This is not going to turn into a post about the recent social issue of bullying. I will keep my opinions to myself, but just know that boy, do I have them. No, the point that I'm trying to make (probably mostly for myself) here is that I question whether or not anyone who has been labeled "different" can ever truly escape that. They may become happy, productive, successful, or even famous, but I would argue that they will still go through life struggling against feeling excluded.
The question is whether or not that problem exists merely in their own heads, or in the greater reality, or some combination of both. I know that, for me, it's probably a combination. Even though I spent high school and college with a good group of close friends, and even though I now have a wonderful, loving husband and a moderately successful life, I would say that in the last 10 years or so, making/finding really close friends has become increasingly difficult. Part of that is my (our) fault: we have moved cross-country twice now to further our careers. We have lived and worked in different places, which makes meaningful social interaction difficult, not least of which because most people attach their own dislike of driving to us. We, on the other hand, are more than happy to drive 30 minutes if it means hanging out with fun people doing something we enjoy. But we're weird like that, I guess.
The problem, too, is exacerbated by social media. Yes, I know you've heard this rant before. It's hard hearing about the fun things your group of friends back in [insert state here] is doing that you obviously cannot partake of. But harder still is hearing about something fun that the group of people you sometimes hang out with nearby did that you somehow missed out on. Maybe at age 35 I'm not supposed to care anymore. Oops. Guess my growth is stunted, since it still makes me curl up like a little child and bawl for about 5 minutes (something I actually didn't do much of when I was a child and really was excluded from pretty much everything, actually. I believe in making up for lost time).
I think that the problem starts in one's own head and extends into the greater world. I think that, for me, I spent so long learning how to function on my own, or with a very small group of friends (which I do have, but they live far away, yes, my own fault) that I ... I don't know, give off a vibe? Do people look at me and think "Oh, she doesn't need us"? With my self-esteem I tend to assume that it is more likely people think I am any combination of the following: loud, obnoxious, not funny, uncool, rude, etc. etc. but that doesn't explain why we (my husband and I) both feel very isolated, because he, at least, is the nicest person on the planet, and I don't understand how anyone could not like him. Maybe they have no respect for that guy who puts up with that insufferable woman.
The truth is that my self-confidence isn't actually that bad. More often what I assume is that those other people are merely part of a different "group of individuals," and that I (of course) am the true individual who does not fit in. And thereagain, I think that's something that has come about independent of me. Sam in high school and college prided herself on being different from everyone. She didn't seek it out, exactly ... she just was, and back then that seemed to still gain her friends and admirers. These days, though, adults seem to have different values, and suddenly, Samantha finds herself just wanting to be liked. It's a reversion, actually, back to grade school, when little Sammi (ugh) just wanted to fit in. The difference is that the goals are somewhat at odds. I really like being myself. I'm a work in progress, a practicing human, as I like to say. And I'm fine with what I like, what I think (and what I think about), how I dress, and so on. But I still want to be liked, and have friends who call on a Friday and say "Hey, what are you doing tonight?" or write on my Facebook wall that they're just checking in to see how I'm doing (although at 8 mos. pregnant I am a bit tired of the question "How are you feeling?"), or post a funny picture of something inane we all did last weekend.
I just want to know what I'm doing wrong. Because all we have in our own lives is ourselves, right? We are the constant. Therefore experience would lead us to believe that, if the same thing seems to happen to us over and over again, it must be me, right?
Nobody really likes being alone.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Things I miss
- Wine (WINE.)
- Sushi
- My feet. They're down there somewhere.
- "Real" yoga. The difference is sort of...the difference between constantly improving/perfecting your actions, vs. what feels like merely a holding pattern.
- Sleeping on my back, which I wasn't even aware I really did that much of. But boy, do I miss it.
- Serious workouts/cardio. Like, a lot.
- My brain. I'm pretty spacey these days.
- My ability to walk up a flight of stairs without becoming winded. I'll never take that for granted again.
- Did I already say wine?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Happiness is...
This is a meme. Do it yourself, if you'd like. I was tagged by RTM over at FlixChatter, and I'm going to do it here in order to keep the more personal blogging separate from the movie blogging. Ten things that make me happy. Here we go...
1. My husband. He makes me happy, even when he doesn't. He's my best friend, and I would rather hang out with him than anyone else. Good thing, since he's pretty much the only person I have to hang out with.
2. My cats. We call 'em monkeys. They're hard work sometimes, and they're often obnoxious, but they're also big and fuzzy, endlessly amusing, and surprisingly loving.
3. Helping out friends. It just puts a big old smile on my face.
4. Randomly hearing a song I love on the radio. Sometimes, that can just make your whole day.
5. Mail. I love getting mail, if it's actually FOR ME, as opposed to a bill or a junk mailing. I even get excited about magazines that come every month, and those little red envelopes from Netflix.
6. Food. I could narrow it down, but why bother?
7. Hearing good things about people I like/care about. Yes, that includes celebrities.
8. Tea. I drink it hot every morning. I like various kinds, mostly black, and I am not a snob about tea bags. Yes, I drink it even in the summer, but it's best when it's fall/winter, I have nowhere to be, and I can linger over a crossword puzzle whilst sipping.
10. Exercise. Yeah, I know, I'm a weirdo. I promise I still have days where I am too lazy to do anything, but more often than not, I love a good work-out. If I haven't worked out in a while, I don't even have to do anything fancy...30 minutes on an elliptical machine will have me grinning from ear to ear.
(I'll tell you a secret: unfortunately, that was more difficult than I would have guessed.)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Career decisions
Recently, I've been thinking about my career. More specifically, about what I would do if I decided to no longer be a rare book cataloger. Now, don't get me wrong. I really like my job, and I have no intention of leaving the profession any time soon. I do have some fears, I guess, about the longevity of rare book cataloging, though, and I think often about that most dreaded of interview questions: Where do you see yourself in 5-10 years?
Someone, during an interview actually, gave me a great answer to that question recently: "In 5-10 years, I hope to be the best cataloger I can be." The lip-service answer, of course, is something about moving up into administration, being the head of a department, supervision, blah blah blah. That's just ... so not me. Realistically, I sort of imagine I will end up in that kind of role someday, but it's not what I'd want. I actually want to be one of those crusty old types who just catalogs the books. Knows everything. Follows orders. That would make me happy.
But. What would I do if I weren't a cataloger? I have no idea. I really can't come up with anything, mostly because I'm lazy, and until someone is going to pay me to sit around and read books, or exercise, or watch movies, I don't have any brilliant ideas. Teacher? Critic? Editor? That last is perhaps the most reasonable, but the publishing industry is scrambling these days, and besides. My grasp of grammar isn't really that great. Some type of journalism? I dunno. I need to write a lot more, and a lot more regularly, before I really get the sense that anyone would want to read what I write. And what would I write about?
Not so long ago, I pondered what I might go back to school for, if not my dream MA in English lit. I came up with linguistics. I like languages and learning about languages, and how we use language ...
Basically, I think I have skills, interests, and inclinations in things that aren't terrifically lucrative, or even conducive to "real" jobs.
Something to continue pondering, I suppose...hopefully, the world will still need catalogers for a little while longer.
Someone, during an interview actually, gave me a great answer to that question recently: "In 5-10 years, I hope to be the best cataloger I can be." The lip-service answer, of course, is something about moving up into administration, being the head of a department, supervision, blah blah blah. That's just ... so not me. Realistically, I sort of imagine I will end up in that kind of role someday, but it's not what I'd want. I actually want to be one of those crusty old types who just catalogs the books. Knows everything. Follows orders. That would make me happy.
But. What would I do if I weren't a cataloger? I have no idea. I really can't come up with anything, mostly because I'm lazy, and until someone is going to pay me to sit around and read books, or exercise, or watch movies, I don't have any brilliant ideas. Teacher? Critic? Editor? That last is perhaps the most reasonable, but the publishing industry is scrambling these days, and besides. My grasp of grammar isn't really that great. Some type of journalism? I dunno. I need to write a lot more, and a lot more regularly, before I really get the sense that anyone would want to read what I write. And what would I write about?
Not so long ago, I pondered what I might go back to school for, if not my dream MA in English lit. I came up with linguistics. I like languages and learning about languages, and how we use language ...
Basically, I think I have skills, interests, and inclinations in things that aren't terrifically lucrative, or even conducive to "real" jobs.
Something to continue pondering, I suppose...hopefully, the world will still need catalogers for a little while longer.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Still here!
I guess it says something sad about the fact that I haven't really blogged here since starting the movie blog, huh? That is, I think, going quite swimmingly ... at least I'm enjoying myself. My current schedule doesn't allow me to watch quite as many movies as I'd like, but I'm still managing to find things to blog about there.
And here? Well, let's see. Summer in CT has been ridiculously hot so far. Work is work - I enjoy it but don't like the logistics of it. We made a week-long trip to MN back in June to see friends get married, and friends get ordained, visit w/family and friends, and see a Twins game at shiny new Target Field. We also made a trip down to NYC to see the Twins v. the Mets at Citi Field. They won both games, so we're 2-2 this year. Yay! We also traveled to Vermont over the 4th of July weekend. Neither of us had ever been there, so we wanted to visit, and since we have friends who live in Montpelier (more or less) and Burlington, we had good excuses. Good food was had, good conversation, and an excellent hike. And now, we stay put for a while. Last weekend actually featured some fun activities, though - CAKE was playing in Danbury, on Andrew's birthday, no less, so we caught their excellent show. They played all of my favorites, because, of course they did! We also saw Inception (excellent!) and went to Shakespeare in the Grove for an al fresco performance of As You Like It (because really, is there any other way to see it?) Hoping to get to a Rockcats game (local triple-A team, Twins affiliate) this weekend, perhaps.
Otherwise, all is well.
Oh, and uh ... the elephant in the room? For those who may not know, we are expecting the debut of "Rock Star Klein" in December. All going swimmingly so far. Recommend keeping a look-out on Facebook for more information, as blogs are not the most private things ever. Or shoot me a message if you'd like to be included in any emailings that happen. :)
So yeah. How are you?
And here? Well, let's see. Summer in CT has been ridiculously hot so far. Work is work - I enjoy it but don't like the logistics of it. We made a week-long trip to MN back in June to see friends get married, and friends get ordained, visit w/family and friends, and see a Twins game at shiny new Target Field. We also made a trip down to NYC to see the Twins v. the Mets at Citi Field. They won both games, so we're 2-2 this year. Yay! We also traveled to Vermont over the 4th of July weekend. Neither of us had ever been there, so we wanted to visit, and since we have friends who live in Montpelier (more or less) and Burlington, we had good excuses. Good food was had, good conversation, and an excellent hike. And now, we stay put for a while. Last weekend actually featured some fun activities, though - CAKE was playing in Danbury, on Andrew's birthday, no less, so we caught their excellent show. They played all of my favorites, because, of course they did! We also saw Inception (excellent!) and went to Shakespeare in the Grove for an al fresco performance of As You Like It (because really, is there any other way to see it?) Hoping to get to a Rockcats game (local triple-A team, Twins affiliate) this weekend, perhaps.
Otherwise, all is well.
Oh, and uh ... the elephant in the room? For those who may not know, we are expecting the debut of "Rock Star Klein" in December. All going swimmingly so far. Recommend keeping a look-out on Facebook for more information, as blogs are not the most private things ever. Or shoot me a message if you'd like to be included in any emailings that happen. :)
So yeah. How are you?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Open letter, # I forgot
Dear Javier Bardem,
Could you please do more accessible movies, and fewer heavy, serious ones, so that I can see more of you? My Top Five list has a vacancy, and you're the front-runner.
Thank you!
Love,
me
Could you please do more accessible movies, and fewer heavy, serious ones, so that I can see more of you? My Top Five list has a vacancy, and you're the front-runner.
Thank you!
Love,
me
Friday, June 04, 2010
Blog news
By posting it here, I'll feel more held to it.
I am planning on starting a new blog devoted to movies/film. Haven't fully nailed down a name yet, haven't started writing posts - it's just in the works. I'll let you know when it's going to happen. Right now I've got a week before I go on vacation for a week, so not really sure if it'll happen before then.
At that time, several of the posts here regarding movies (and books about movies) will be moved (I hope) to said new blog, and this blog will return to its uninteresting stream of consciousness litany of opinions.
As such - here's what I'm thinking about this week.
*Oil spill. The !@%!@#^% oil spill. My god. There are no words.
*Peripherally, I am good with the fact that Obama is not "venting" his frustration. That's not his job, people. I think it says a lot about our tabloid culture that we ... what, exactly? Just want Obama to stand at a platform and struggle with showing his anger while not cursing? What would that solve, precisely?
*That whole "ruined perfect game" thing. Look, I've been a fencer for 17 years. I've seen bouts won and lost on "bad calls". I've seen directors look at video after the fact and say "Oops. Yeah, I was wrong." It's part of the game - ANY game. Let's move on, shall we?
*Vacation! We are going to MN for a week to attend a wedding, attend an ordination, see a Twins game in their shiny new stadium, see lots of friends, hopefully meet some cool bloggers, and just generally enjoy ourselves. Woot.
*I'm reading a new book about movies, (It's about John Hughes, mostly, and the impact of the great "teen" films of the 80s) but I won't go into that. Suffice it to say I am craving lots of James Spader and RDJ. :D
Glad it's Friday. Enjoy the weekend!
I am planning on starting a new blog devoted to movies/film. Haven't fully nailed down a name yet, haven't started writing posts - it's just in the works. I'll let you know when it's going to happen. Right now I've got a week before I go on vacation for a week, so not really sure if it'll happen before then.
At that time, several of the posts here regarding movies (and books about movies) will be moved (I hope) to said new blog, and this blog will return to its uninteresting stream of consciousness litany of opinions.
As such - here's what I'm thinking about this week.
*Oil spill. The !@%!@#^% oil spill. My god. There are no words.
*Peripherally, I am good with the fact that Obama is not "venting" his frustration. That's not his job, people. I think it says a lot about our tabloid culture that we ... what, exactly? Just want Obama to stand at a platform and struggle with showing his anger while not cursing? What would that solve, precisely?
*That whole "ruined perfect game" thing. Look, I've been a fencer for 17 years. I've seen bouts won and lost on "bad calls". I've seen directors look at video after the fact and say "Oops. Yeah, I was wrong." It's part of the game - ANY game. Let's move on, shall we?
*Vacation! We are going to MN for a week to attend a wedding, attend an ordination, see a Twins game in their shiny new stadium, see lots of friends, hopefully meet some cool bloggers, and just generally enjoy ourselves. Woot.
*I'm reading a new book about movies, (It's about John Hughes, mostly, and the impact of the great "teen" films of the 80s) but I won't go into that. Suffice it to say I am craving lots of James Spader and RDJ. :D
Glad it's Friday. Enjoy the weekend!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
More movies
I'm reading a book right now entitled Hellraisers: The Inebriated Life and Times of Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Richard Harris & Oliver Reed, and it's lead me to realize that I have never seen a Richard Burton film, and have really only seen O'Toole, Harris, and Reed in more modern things. I don't remember Camelot (Harris) or Oliver! (Reed). The only thing I can think of having seen w/O'Toole in it is Stardust, although someday we'll get around to Lawrence of Arabia. I love Harris and Reed in Gladiator, and truthfully, I have loved Reed ever since, and only because of, Black Arrow, which is lamentably unavailable on DVD. WTF, Disney??
All of this is just to comment on my increasing commitment to movie geekdom. In the last year or so I read a Gene Kelly bio and a Judy Garland one, and have plans to read one on Chaplin at some point ... Hollywood's fascinating. I think we forget that the antics of the obnoxious celebutantes and crazy actors of today is truthfully nothing new. Seriously, read Hellraisers and you'll realize that today's gang is pretty tame by comparison. The writing's kind of a mess, but it's terribly entertaining.
At any rate, I've now added Becket, Cleopatra, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to the old Netflix queue ... Camelot's already on it, as is A Lion in Winter and Oliver!. Fun times ahead! Any recommendations to add?
All of this is just to comment on my increasing commitment to movie geekdom. In the last year or so I read a Gene Kelly bio and a Judy Garland one, and have plans to read one on Chaplin at some point ... Hollywood's fascinating. I think we forget that the antics of the obnoxious celebutantes and crazy actors of today is truthfully nothing new. Seriously, read Hellraisers and you'll realize that today's gang is pretty tame by comparison. The writing's kind of a mess, but it's terribly entertaining.
At any rate, I've now added Becket, Cleopatra, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to the old Netflix queue ... Camelot's already on it, as is A Lion in Winter and Oliver!. Fun times ahead! Any recommendations to add?
Monday, May 10, 2010
New focus?
I'm not necessarily turning into a movie blogger just yet, but when the fabulous RTM asked me to do a guest post about new favorite, up-and-comer Mark Strong, how could I say no? Read it here, and of course, many thanks to RTM for the honor!
Iron Man 2
Despite the amount of movies I see, I have long resisted writing reviews, for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I think I just don't have the attention span. However, I read a lot of reviews, and in this case, having seen the movie now, I feel the need to offer up my own opinion in order to set the record straight. I am not a snooty movie critic. My main desire in seeing a film is usually just to be entertained (although sometimes it's to see a specific actor). I am, admittedly, a huge fan of Robert Downey, Jr. I have what I consider to be a reasonable amount of geek cred, so I am usually down with the newest comic book film, and I do love a good popcorn flick. I hated The Dark Knight for being far too overwrought and overrated. So, with that disclosure, read on, if you wish.
We watched the first Iron Man movie on Friday night as a refresher course, and I think that was a good choice. It reminded me of the things I loved: the banter, RDJ, the scenes where it's just Tony Stark with his computers and robots, the sheer badassness of Iron Man himself, Jeff Bridges; and of the things I was less thrilled with: Terrence Howard (seriously, ugh) and the big finale fight scene, mainly.
SO, Iron Man 2. Let me start out by saying that, for my money, all of the things I liked about the first movie were still present. I had most feared for the "Stark working" scenes, thinking there just wouldn't be a need for them, but they're still there (along with Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who, seriously, I want to help walk me through my day). AND, they fixed the things I didn't like. Switching Don Cheadle for Terrence Howard was a brilliant move, IMO ... he just fits right in. And the final fight scenes were much better this time around. Good stuff. Now, as for the rest of the film.
First of all, one of the things that a lot of critics complained about was the slightly more serious tone of the second movie as compared to the first. I actually found this to be completely appropriate and enjoyable. In the first movie, Tony Stark had his world changed. He created a superhero suit that looks really fun, and he accordingly enjoyed it. For the second go-round, the bottom should drop out. Consequences should arise, troubles should multiply, characters (I'm looking at you, Pepper) should be more stressed out. All of that seemed completely natural to me, and completely understandable within a greater story arc. And there were still light/fun moments, heightened, I think, by a slightly more cohesive cast.
About that cast: Cheadle, as mentioned, is awesome. Paltrow's Potts has been accused of not being as "good" this time around, but again, I think that within the framework of the story, she was right on. Scarlett Johanssen, as Stark's new assistant/possible double agent, has been called "wooden" by numerous sources. There again, though, I would argue that to me, that just seemed like her character. She was supposed to be apart from "the gang" and of questionable motive. She delivered. Mickey Rourke was a fun bad guy. Maybe not as fun as Jeff Bridges, but so what? And finally, Sam Rockwell was just fabulous. He pulled off being a knock-off Tony Stark perfectly. Where Tony is charismatic enough to hardly ever seem slimy, Rockwell's Justin Hammer was a complete little shit, and I thought he was perfect. Bonus points for director Jon Favreau's slightly stepped-up role as Happy Hogan. About RDJ, I'm not sure what needs to be said. The man is a revelation. He can convey more in the blink of one eye than most actors can do in their entire body of work. Call me biased if you want, but the guy's incredible, and I love that we have a comic book franchise with a lead who can seriously act.
On to other matters -- like the plot/story. Critics complain here, but may I remind you that this is a comic book movie? Plots are always a bit ridiculous, maybe a little hole-y, usually fairly busy. This one is no exception, but I really didn't think it was overloaded. Didn't feel there were too many villains, really liked the character development (in terms of Stark) ... I actually wished they'd done a little bit more with Rourke's character. Overall, though, it was easy to follow (unlike some - *cough*Dark Knight*cough*), and it set up things to come while deepening what was already there. That equals success in my book.
In summary, I think that in terms of critical reception, expectations were simply too high. I totally loved this movie, and my main complaints were that RDJ didn't spend enough time in a tank top, hammering things, and that ScarJo's fight sequences were a little too fast and blurry to be properly enjoyed. We need to remember that in good trilogies (see: Star Wars) the second act is always the dark one, and that's usually a good thing. If you liked the first one, go see this one with an open mind and/or lowered expectations, and I think you'll have a good time. Unless you liked Terrence Howard as Rhodes, in which case, I cannot help you.
We watched the first Iron Man movie on Friday night as a refresher course, and I think that was a good choice. It reminded me of the things I loved: the banter, RDJ, the scenes where it's just Tony Stark with his computers and robots, the sheer badassness of Iron Man himself, Jeff Bridges; and of the things I was less thrilled with: Terrence Howard (seriously, ugh) and the big finale fight scene, mainly.
SO, Iron Man 2. Let me start out by saying that, for my money, all of the things I liked about the first movie were still present. I had most feared for the "Stark working" scenes, thinking there just wouldn't be a need for them, but they're still there (along with Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who, seriously, I want to help walk me through my day). AND, they fixed the things I didn't like. Switching Don Cheadle for Terrence Howard was a brilliant move, IMO ... he just fits right in. And the final fight scenes were much better this time around. Good stuff. Now, as for the rest of the film.
First of all, one of the things that a lot of critics complained about was the slightly more serious tone of the second movie as compared to the first. I actually found this to be completely appropriate and enjoyable. In the first movie, Tony Stark had his world changed. He created a superhero suit that looks really fun, and he accordingly enjoyed it. For the second go-round, the bottom should drop out. Consequences should arise, troubles should multiply, characters (I'm looking at you, Pepper) should be more stressed out. All of that seemed completely natural to me, and completely understandable within a greater story arc. And there were still light/fun moments, heightened, I think, by a slightly more cohesive cast.
About that cast: Cheadle, as mentioned, is awesome. Paltrow's Potts has been accused of not being as "good" this time around, but again, I think that within the framework of the story, she was right on. Scarlett Johanssen, as Stark's new assistant/possible double agent, has been called "wooden" by numerous sources. There again, though, I would argue that to me, that just seemed like her character. She was supposed to be apart from "the gang" and of questionable motive. She delivered. Mickey Rourke was a fun bad guy. Maybe not as fun as Jeff Bridges, but so what? And finally, Sam Rockwell was just fabulous. He pulled off being a knock-off Tony Stark perfectly. Where Tony is charismatic enough to hardly ever seem slimy, Rockwell's Justin Hammer was a complete little shit, and I thought he was perfect. Bonus points for director Jon Favreau's slightly stepped-up role as Happy Hogan. About RDJ, I'm not sure what needs to be said. The man is a revelation. He can convey more in the blink of one eye than most actors can do in their entire body of work. Call me biased if you want, but the guy's incredible, and I love that we have a comic book franchise with a lead who can seriously act.
On to other matters -- like the plot/story. Critics complain here, but may I remind you that this is a comic book movie? Plots are always a bit ridiculous, maybe a little hole-y, usually fairly busy. This one is no exception, but I really didn't think it was overloaded. Didn't feel there were too many villains, really liked the character development (in terms of Stark) ... I actually wished they'd done a little bit more with Rourke's character. Overall, though, it was easy to follow (unlike some - *cough*Dark Knight*cough*), and it set up things to come while deepening what was already there. That equals success in my book.
In summary, I think that in terms of critical reception, expectations were simply too high. I totally loved this movie, and my main complaints were that RDJ didn't spend enough time in a tank top, hammering things, and that ScarJo's fight sequences were a little too fast and blurry to be properly enjoyed. We need to remember that in good trilogies (see: Star Wars) the second act is always the dark one, and that's usually a good thing. If you liked the first one, go see this one with an open mind and/or lowered expectations, and I think you'll have a good time. Unless you liked Terrence Howard as Rhodes, in which case, I cannot help you.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Best Picture?
Unless your roof is a lovely shade of granite, you probably know that the Oscars happened last Sunday. You also probably know that, despite making more money than God, Avatar lost Best Picture to The Hurt Locker, a comparatively tiny film that made a whole lot less money. No doubt there are tons of people up in arms about this, as there are every year. Why doesn't a "popular" movie win the biggest awards? Who even saw The Hurt Locker? Well, members of the Academy. Not me. I saw neither, having no interest. So I have nothing to say about that.
But, when RTM over at FlixChatter asked about Best Picture winners that I wanted to watch more than once, I got to thinking. You may recall (but probably not) that I brought up a somewhat similar topic a couple of years ago. I definitely find those movies that I enjoy watching more "important" than those that somebody else says are worth watching.
But what interested me was the result of those two ideas merging. The movies that the Academy and I agreed upon. And so, I made some lists and checked them twice, and I will share them with you. As such, here are those Best Picture winners that I have seen. I've also made a note of how many times I've seen them, whether or not I'd see them again, and whether or not I own them.
Best Picture winners, seen by me
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) - 1
Gone with the wind (1939) - multiple, own
Casablanca (1943) - 1, would see again
Hamlet (1948) - 1, undecided
An American in Paris (1951) - 1, loved, want to own
Gigi (1958) - multiple, own
Ben-Hur (1959) - multiple
The Apartment (1960) - 1, would see again
West Side Story (1961) - multiple, not a fan
My Fair Lady (1964) - multiple, own
The Sound of Music (1965) - multiple, own
Patton (1970) - 1
The French Connection (1971) - 1
The Godfather (1972) - 1, would see again
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) - 1
Rcky (1976) - 1
The Deer Hunter (178) - 1
Amadeus (1984) - multiple
Platoon (1986) - 1
Dances with Wolves (1990) - 2
Silence of the Lambs (1991) - 1
Unforgiven (1992) - 1
Schindler's List (1993) - 1
Forrest Gump (1994) - multiple
Braveheart (1995) - 1
Shakespeare in Love (1998) - multiple, own
American Beauty (1999) - 1
Gladiator (2000) - multiple, own
A Beautiful Mind (2001) - 2, want to own
Chicago (2002) - multiple, own
LOTR: Return of the King (2003) - 1
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)- 1, would see again
What I discovered was that, in a reasonably small collection of DVDs, a surprising number are Oscar winners. I actually went through the longer list of all BP nominees, and the numbers go up accordingly. Those that I didn't personally enjoy I still thought were (generally speaking) remarkable films: well-made, well-acted, solid. Even if I wouldn't watch them again, I appreciate them as very good, except American Beauty. I've just got no use for that one.
So, I mean, of these 31 movies, I would definitely watch over half of them again. Of those, nearly half again I actually own or plan on owning. There are at least 10 winners that I have immediate plans to see, so maybe I'll have to update this list, but still. Not bad numbers for the old Academy, eh?
But, when RTM over at FlixChatter asked about Best Picture winners that I wanted to watch more than once, I got to thinking. You may recall (but probably not) that I brought up a somewhat similar topic a couple of years ago. I definitely find those movies that I enjoy watching more "important" than those that somebody else says are worth watching.
But what interested me was the result of those two ideas merging. The movies that the Academy and I agreed upon. And so, I made some lists and checked them twice, and I will share them with you. As such, here are those Best Picture winners that I have seen. I've also made a note of how many times I've seen them, whether or not I'd see them again, and whether or not I own them.
Best Picture winners, seen by me
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) - 1
Gone with the wind (1939) - multiple, own
Casablanca (1943) - 1, would see again
Hamlet (1948) - 1, undecided
An American in Paris (1951) - 1, loved, want to own
Gigi (1958) - multiple, own
Ben-Hur (1959) - multiple
The Apartment (1960) - 1, would see again
West Side Story (1961) - multiple, not a fan
My Fair Lady (1964) - multiple, own
The Sound of Music (1965) - multiple, own
Patton (1970) - 1
The French Connection (1971) - 1
The Godfather (1972) - 1, would see again
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) - 1
Rcky (1976) - 1
The Deer Hunter (178) - 1
Amadeus (1984) - multiple
Platoon (1986) - 1
Dances with Wolves (1990) - 2
Silence of the Lambs (1991) - 1
Unforgiven (1992) - 1
Schindler's List (1993) - 1
Forrest Gump (1994) - multiple
Braveheart (1995) - 1
Shakespeare in Love (1998) - multiple, own
American Beauty (1999) - 1
Gladiator (2000) - multiple, own
A Beautiful Mind (2001) - 2, want to own
Chicago (2002) - multiple, own
LOTR: Return of the King (2003) - 1
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)- 1, would see again
What I discovered was that, in a reasonably small collection of DVDs, a surprising number are Oscar winners. I actually went through the longer list of all BP nominees, and the numbers go up accordingly. Those that I didn't personally enjoy I still thought were (generally speaking) remarkable films: well-made, well-acted, solid. Even if I wouldn't watch them again, I appreciate them as very good, except American Beauty. I've just got no use for that one.
So, I mean, of these 31 movies, I would definitely watch over half of them again. Of those, nearly half again I actually own or plan on owning. There are at least 10 winners that I have immediate plans to see, so maybe I'll have to update this list, but still. Not bad numbers for the old Academy, eh?
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Vague thoughts
Here's what I'm thinking about. I'm grasping, so bear with me. I've recently been "reconnecting" (rewatching his stuff) with an actor/characters I really liked as a kid. Preteen, I guess. What I'm finding fascinating is that I really think my eleven-year-old self was on to something. I don't think that I was at a point yet where I can really say I had a crush, but there was a definite connection. And now, I think "Wow. That guy really had something." So it's sort of a chicken-and-egg discussion: Do I really like him now simply because I did then, or is there some fundamental part of my tastes that has not changed? Kind of lame, I guess, but if you know me, you'll know that my love of actors is just a thing, and really, I'd have to say that this guy is the first. Now he's pushing sixty and a grandpa and I miss the slim, blond young man of my youth. I bet he does too. How bizarre that I could come back to it. Obviously, on the screen, he hasn't changed - the characters haven't changed - but I have. But seriously, schoolgirl swooning aside, what interests me is the reconnect. Admittedly, the shows I'm watching were not really children's shows, and so it's reasonable that I would enjoy them as an adult. But it's his performance and characterization that resonates with me, and I'm not sure that it's all nostalgia. Surely some of it is.
Meh. I don't think I'm getting across what I'm trying to. Anyway.
Yeah, vague, random, and probably really lame. My husband is laughing right now, trust. Oh well.
No, I'm not telling who it is. It's too dorky for words.
Meh. I don't think I'm getting across what I'm trying to. Anyway.
Yeah, vague, random, and probably really lame. My husband is laughing right now, trust. Oh well.
No, I'm not telling who it is. It's too dorky for words.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Open Letter IV
Dear Fashion Industry-
This just occurred to me. If the reason for having skeletal runway models is that your clothes look best on them, wouldn't it be an exciting, interesting, and potentially lucrative challenge to actually design your clothes so that they look best on normal people? Just a thought. You should get on that.
Love,
5'3", 140 pounds, broad-shouldered, voluptuous me.
This just occurred to me. If the reason for having skeletal runway models is that your clothes look best on them, wouldn't it be an exciting, interesting, and potentially lucrative challenge to actually design your clothes so that they look best on normal people? Just a thought. You should get on that.
Love,
5'3", 140 pounds, broad-shouldered, voluptuous me.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Styling question!
Just in case there are any fashionistas out there who might actually read this. How would you "winterize" this dress, preferably in order to wear it to work?
Bonus points if you work in the shoes.
Go!
Bonus points if you work in the shoes.
Go!
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Want list, musical
Arctic Monkeys, Humbug
Lily Allen, It's Not Me, It's You
Katzenjammer, Le Pop
Camera Obscura, My Maudlin Career
Neko Case, Middle Cyclone
Lily Allen, It's Not Me, It's You
Katzenjammer, Le Pop
Camera Obscura, My Maudlin Career
Neko Case, Middle Cyclone
Friday, January 29, 2010
Blogging
So I've updated some of my links to reflect some more blogs/people I like to keep up with ... most of them are people I actually know. So far. ;) I got rid of a few that seemed truly dead, and I noticed that one or two of you have been awfully slack. Yep, boys, I'm looking at you.
I'm kind of slack, too, I admit it. I suddenly find that I have a minor interest in many things, as evidenced by my internet habits: cooking, style, movies, etc. Perhaps I shall make a better effort to pick one thing that I am thinking about in a week and post about it. I'm even considering a not-so-daily outfit posting. Good lord.
Here's what I'm thinking about today: the chalk directive, "Love your bodies" on the library steps. I do love my body. I also love college campuses, and that message is just one reason why. Movies. I'm becoming more of a "movie buff" every day.Subject headings. Seems to me they're being used less frequently, and with less efficiency. What gives? I thought everyone just loved "keywords". Arthur and Arthuriana. I'm cataloging it and reading Malory. Yoga/exercise. Looking forward to going home and doing some.Food. I'm hungry. We've been making lots of new recipes lately, and have successfully experimented with making "homemade" ravioli from wonton skins on two occasions! Also, looking forward to some new eats and socialization with newish friends this weekend. Decorating. Still unpacking.
What are you thinking about?
I'm kind of slack, too, I admit it. I suddenly find that I have a minor interest in many things, as evidenced by my internet habits: cooking, style, movies, etc. Perhaps I shall make a better effort to pick one thing that I am thinking about in a week and post about it. I'm even considering a not-so-daily outfit posting. Good lord.
Here's what I'm thinking about today: the chalk directive, "Love your bodies" on the library steps. I do love my body. I also love college campuses, and that message is just one reason why. Movies. I'm becoming more of a "movie buff" every day.Subject headings. Seems to me they're being used less frequently, and with less efficiency. What gives? I thought everyone just loved "keywords". Arthur and Arthuriana. I'm cataloging it and reading Malory. Yoga/exercise. Looking forward to going home and doing some.Food. I'm hungry. We've been making lots of new recipes lately, and have successfully experimented with making "homemade" ravioli from wonton skins on two occasions! Also, looking forward to some new eats and socialization with newish friends this weekend. Decorating. Still unpacking.
What are you thinking about?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
My wishlist:
Per a discussion with the fabulous Mari, I would like:
For all of my friends to be in happy relationships, an awesome job at Yale, a kid, loads of cash, a smaller waist, Frye boots for everyone!, tons of cute interesting cardigans in a variety of colors, less cellulite on everyone's thighs, and maybe some Dom Perignon.
Also new kneepads for Mari, and pants for me.
If anyone can do anything about any of that, I'll be your best friend forever. I can give you a list of acceptable cardigans right now,even. :D
For all of my friends to be in happy relationships, an awesome job at Yale, a kid, loads of cash, a smaller waist, Frye boots for everyone!, tons of cute interesting cardigans in a variety of colors, less cellulite on everyone's thighs, and maybe some Dom Perignon.
Also new kneepads for Mari, and pants for me.
If anyone can do anything about any of that, I'll be your best friend forever. I can give you a list of acceptable cardigans right now,even. :D
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Opera #3: Duke Bluebeard's Castle
Duke Bluebeard's Castle
Music by Bela Bartok, libretto by Bela Balazs
The story of Bluebeard and his wives is a reasonably well-known (?) fairy story written by Charles Perrault (best known for Cinderella). Bluebeard brings a new young bride to his castle, wherein she snoops behind locked doors and discovers that her new husband has horribly murdered his former wives. In the story she manages to escape and live happily ever after. Perrault apparently likes to get a little scary and gory before he serves up the happy ending.
In the operatic version, the bride, Judith, arrives at her home to find seven locked doors. The opera centers around her demands for the doors to be unlocked (based upon her love for Bluebeard and her desire to bring light to his dark home), Bluebeard's protests and eventual relentings, and what she discovers behind those doors. In succession: a torture chamber, an armory, a treasury, and a vast realm, all stained with blood. Behind door number six is a lake of tears. Judith doggedly moves ahead with each door, despite her horror at all the blood, and when she reaches the sixth door, she declares that she's solved the mystery: Bluebeard has murdered his former wives, and it is their blood that stains his castle, their tears that make up the lake behind door six, and their bodies that lie behind door seven. The final door is opened to reveal one part of her theory correct: the wives are there, alive, and shadows of their former selves. Judith takes her place among them, and the opera ends with the castle (and Bluebeard) once again thrown into darkness.
Clearly, this is a much more psychological and ultimately darker interpretation than Perrault's original story. The journey Judith takes is apparently one through her new husband's soul, and in the end, she is assimilated into his life, losing her "self" and merely becoming a part of his whole. I suppose the moral of the story would be that perhaps one doesn't really want to know everything about one's partner's past and psyche. There is, of course, also the notion of a wife's duty to defer to her husband in all things, becoming a part of him rather than an individual.
What is tremendous about Bartok's opera is the music. It rises and falls with creepy/scary tension and tender moments. The accompaniment for each of the rooms truly paints the picture, making this opera a little easier to envision on stage, even while merely listening to a recording. I'd have to say I enjoyed this one, perhaps more than the others ... the story, though, is clearly a hard one to really follow or interpret. I suppose I prefer simple plots and execution, rather than something requiring serious psychoanalysis.
Music by Bela Bartok, libretto by Bela Balazs
The story of Bluebeard and his wives is a reasonably well-known (?) fairy story written by Charles Perrault (best known for Cinderella). Bluebeard brings a new young bride to his castle, wherein she snoops behind locked doors and discovers that her new husband has horribly murdered his former wives. In the story she manages to escape and live happily ever after. Perrault apparently likes to get a little scary and gory before he serves up the happy ending.
In the operatic version, the bride, Judith, arrives at her home to find seven locked doors. The opera centers around her demands for the doors to be unlocked (based upon her love for Bluebeard and her desire to bring light to his dark home), Bluebeard's protests and eventual relentings, and what she discovers behind those doors. In succession: a torture chamber, an armory, a treasury, and a vast realm, all stained with blood. Behind door number six is a lake of tears. Judith doggedly moves ahead with each door, despite her horror at all the blood, and when she reaches the sixth door, she declares that she's solved the mystery: Bluebeard has murdered his former wives, and it is their blood that stains his castle, their tears that make up the lake behind door six, and their bodies that lie behind door seven. The final door is opened to reveal one part of her theory correct: the wives are there, alive, and shadows of their former selves. Judith takes her place among them, and the opera ends with the castle (and Bluebeard) once again thrown into darkness.
Clearly, this is a much more psychological and ultimately darker interpretation than Perrault's original story. The journey Judith takes is apparently one through her new husband's soul, and in the end, she is assimilated into his life, losing her "self" and merely becoming a part of his whole. I suppose the moral of the story would be that perhaps one doesn't really want to know everything about one's partner's past and psyche. There is, of course, also the notion of a wife's duty to defer to her husband in all things, becoming a part of him rather than an individual.
What is tremendous about Bartok's opera is the music. It rises and falls with creepy/scary tension and tender moments. The accompaniment for each of the rooms truly paints the picture, making this opera a little easier to envision on stage, even while merely listening to a recording. I'd have to say I enjoyed this one, perhaps more than the others ... the story, though, is clearly a hard one to really follow or interpret. I suppose I prefer simple plots and execution, rather than something requiring serious psychoanalysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)