Gina: What happened to your cake you cooking? Where's you cake?
Me: I didn't make a cake, baby. I made mashed potatoes.
Gina: Oh.
Me: Do you like mashed potatoes?
Gina: No.
Me: That's okay. Maybe I'll make you some potato patties later.
Gina: No! I don't like tato pa-patties!
Me: Potato patties?
Gina: I don't like tato pa-pattie-toes...tato... I don't like them!
Grandma's Potato Pattie Recipe:
mashed potatoes, rolled up into balls (cold potatoes work best)
1 egg
1/2 cup (or so) of milk
1-2 tbsp butter or oil for frying
salt and pepper to taste
Heat butter or oil in pan. Combine milk and egg in small bowl; beat well. Dip potato ball into egg batter, then drop into pan. Mash down ball with spatula while frying. Cook both sides until desired color (golden, light brown, etc) or stiffness. Season as desired and serve.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Maybe some Scientologists should embrace karma
Seriously, people. Have you heard about this? Paramount has just up and decided not to renew their contract with Tom Cruise, or rather his production company Cruise/Wagner (C/W), on the grounds that Tom's personal conduct is...unbecoming? Unacceptable. Something like that. Actually, the man who makes such decisions (Sumner Redstone of Viacom) said Tom "effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue," and thus should not be "on the lot."
Currently the celebrity gossip columns are making much of Cruise's unfavorable ratings with the public (what, he's the president now, that he gets his own approval rating?), and everyone seems to be blaming his couch-jumping, anti-depressant-hating, Scientology-spewing conduct for the relative failure of Mission Impossible 3 ($398 million worldwide, when they were all expecting half a billion dollars), which in turn is viewed, by the columnists, as the reason for Paramount's latest decision. But a simple search pulls up an article in Variety, dated July 10 of this year, which reveals this interesting factoid:
Although the company has provided Par[amount] with some heavy hitters at the box office -- "War of the Worlds" and May's "Mission: Impossible III" -- it has also delivered a string of recent disappointments like "Suspect Zero," "Elizabethtown" and "Ask the Dust."
The article goes on to say that "Cruise's deals are notoriously rich and hard to make," and points out that chairman Brad Grey's first priority, when he took over Paramount in 2005, was to reduce the budget for MI3.
So you see, folks, it's not just that Tom Cruise is a stark raving wacko. It's that he's a wacko who produces crappy movies that don't sell at all and expensive movies that don't quite sell enough to make up the difference.
Although, really, I have to admit the wacko factor is what kept me from going out to watch MI3.
Currently the celebrity gossip columns are making much of Cruise's unfavorable ratings with the public (what, he's the president now, that he gets his own approval rating?), and everyone seems to be blaming his couch-jumping, anti-depressant-hating, Scientology-spewing conduct for the relative failure of Mission Impossible 3 ($398 million worldwide, when they were all expecting half a billion dollars), which in turn is viewed, by the columnists, as the reason for Paramount's latest decision. But a simple search pulls up an article in Variety, dated July 10 of this year, which reveals this interesting factoid:
Although the company has provided Par[amount] with some heavy hitters at the box office -- "War of the Worlds" and May's "Mission: Impossible III" -- it has also delivered a string of recent disappointments like "Suspect Zero," "Elizabethtown" and "Ask the Dust."
The article goes on to say that "Cruise's deals are notoriously rich and hard to make," and points out that chairman Brad Grey's first priority, when he took over Paramount in 2005, was to reduce the budget for MI3.
So you see, folks, it's not just that Tom Cruise is a stark raving wacko. It's that he's a wacko who produces crappy movies that don't sell at all and expensive movies that don't quite sell enough to make up the difference.
Although, really, I have to admit the wacko factor is what kept me from going out to watch MI3.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Chicken or Egg?
Which is better to do first: read the book, or watch the movie?
This is the downright dumbest excuse for a fundamental question I've ever had, but here it is. I want to know what you think is better.
Everyone knows by now that if you read the book first, you'll spend the majority of the movie thinking to yourself (or shouting out loud, if you're the type), "Dude, that's not what's supposed to happen!" or "She's supposed to go in the building FIRST!" or "What happened to all the other characters?" or "This doesn't even resemble the central plot of the book. It's like they took all the same characters and wrote a new story for them."
You find yourself unable to enjoy the film for itself, because in your mind it should be the visual companion to the book you know and love, when in fact almost no movie can accomplish such a feat without being 11 hours long. Producers, screenwriters, editors, etc. simply have to change a story, to chop it up and strip it down to bare essentials simply for time constraints. "But, but, no, don't you think maybe..." No. Maybe with the DVD they can recut it and add in all that extra footage (a la Lord of the Rings and Stargate) and make it more like the book, but the theatrical release has to be shortened. It's not like we have intermission these days. People gotta pee. Shorten the story so I can go pee!
This does not mean, however, that I approve of some screenwriters' habit of taking the main characters and just giving them completely new plots. Most of the time I get all pissy and feel like demanding a refund. If I wanted to see Princess Mia Fights the Custom of Marriage while Receiving Gentle Advice from Julie Andrews, I'd write a piece of crappy Princess Diaries fanfiction. I like my Princess Mia the Smartalecky Teenage New Yorker with the Grandmother from Hell, just the way Meg Cabot wrote it.
Do you see what I mean? These movies are good in and of themselves, but I can't just sit and watch these movies and enjoy them for what they are now that I've read the books. In my mind, Mia's Grandmother should be a princess, not a queen, and she should have eyeliner tattooed to her lids, a balding toy poodle, and a prediliction for Sidecars (1/3 lemon juice, 1/3 Cointreau, 1/3 brandy shaken well with ice, strained before serving). Fitzwilliam Darcy should not have that stupid look on his face as though someone were trying to teach him Einstein's theory of relativity 140 years too early. Harry Freaking Potter should have...oh, I won't go there.
On the other hand...
Yesterday I finished reading Practical Magic. Do you recall that film, with Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock? Can you picture Gillian (Kidman) with her long red hair? Can you see the children casting spells? Remember the aunts casting an attraction spell on Sally (Bullock)? Can you picture that hot cop (played by Aidan Quinn) with the multi-colored eyes? That's nice, but don't expect to find them in the book in that way.
Gillian has short blond hair and falls in love with a biology teacher. The children are surly teenagers who don't even know their aunts are witches, and they certainly don't cast their own spells. The hot cop has brown eyes, and he did not come as the result of that cute little spell Sally cast when she was a kid (the spell never happened).
This is not a big deal, really. It's clear the screenwriter took the story and did some major changes, but that's not what bothers me most. No, the problem is that when I read, I can only picture Bullock, Kidman, and Quinn in those roles. And the aunts? Yeah, I can only see Stockard Channing and Dianne Weist. My imagination has been limited, because I saw the movie first. I should be sitting there picturing a blonde in her mid thirties, but all I can come up with is Nicole in her twenties. I should be making up my own ideas about the clothes, scenery, houses, minor characters, etc. But I'm stuck in the movie. I'm stuck with those actors, those set directors, costumers, etc. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's having someone else limit my imagination for me.
So, back to my question. What's better? Book first, or movie first?
This is the downright dumbest excuse for a fundamental question I've ever had, but here it is. I want to know what you think is better.
Everyone knows by now that if you read the book first, you'll spend the majority of the movie thinking to yourself (or shouting out loud, if you're the type), "Dude, that's not what's supposed to happen!" or "She's supposed to go in the building FIRST!" or "What happened to all the other characters?" or "This doesn't even resemble the central plot of the book. It's like they took all the same characters and wrote a new story for them."
You find yourself unable to enjoy the film for itself, because in your mind it should be the visual companion to the book you know and love, when in fact almost no movie can accomplish such a feat without being 11 hours long. Producers, screenwriters, editors, etc. simply have to change a story, to chop it up and strip it down to bare essentials simply for time constraints. "But, but, no, don't you think maybe..." No. Maybe with the DVD they can recut it and add in all that extra footage (a la Lord of the Rings and Stargate) and make it more like the book, but the theatrical release has to be shortened. It's not like we have intermission these days. People gotta pee. Shorten the story so I can go pee!
This does not mean, however, that I approve of some screenwriters' habit of taking the main characters and just giving them completely new plots. Most of the time I get all pissy and feel like demanding a refund. If I wanted to see Princess Mia Fights the Custom of Marriage while Receiving Gentle Advice from Julie Andrews, I'd write a piece of crappy Princess Diaries fanfiction. I like my Princess Mia the Smartalecky Teenage New Yorker with the Grandmother from Hell, just the way Meg Cabot wrote it.
Do you see what I mean? These movies are good in and of themselves, but I can't just sit and watch these movies and enjoy them for what they are now that I've read the books. In my mind, Mia's Grandmother should be a princess, not a queen, and she should have eyeliner tattooed to her lids, a balding toy poodle, and a prediliction for Sidecars (1/3 lemon juice, 1/3 Cointreau, 1/3 brandy shaken well with ice, strained before serving). Fitzwilliam Darcy should not have that stupid look on his face as though someone were trying to teach him Einstein's theory of relativity 140 years too early. Harry Freaking Potter should have...oh, I won't go there.
On the other hand...
Yesterday I finished reading Practical Magic. Do you recall that film, with Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock? Can you picture Gillian (Kidman) with her long red hair? Can you see the children casting spells? Remember the aunts casting an attraction spell on Sally (Bullock)? Can you picture that hot cop (played by Aidan Quinn) with the multi-colored eyes? That's nice, but don't expect to find them in the book in that way.
Gillian has short blond hair and falls in love with a biology teacher. The children are surly teenagers who don't even know their aunts are witches, and they certainly don't cast their own spells. The hot cop has brown eyes, and he did not come as the result of that cute little spell Sally cast when she was a kid (the spell never happened).
This is not a big deal, really. It's clear the screenwriter took the story and did some major changes, but that's not what bothers me most. No, the problem is that when I read, I can only picture Bullock, Kidman, and Quinn in those roles. And the aunts? Yeah, I can only see Stockard Channing and Dianne Weist. My imagination has been limited, because I saw the movie first. I should be sitting there picturing a blonde in her mid thirties, but all I can come up with is Nicole in her twenties. I should be making up my own ideas about the clothes, scenery, houses, minor characters, etc. But I'm stuck in the movie. I'm stuck with those actors, those set directors, costumers, etc. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's having someone else limit my imagination for me.
So, back to my question. What's better? Book first, or movie first?
Monday, August 14, 2006
I love you
You know you're still in love when, after years together, you can still make each other laugh and smile with just a look, or an old joke, or when one of you does an imitation of the other and doesn't give the least bit of offense in doing so.
My dear husband, I treasure you. Thanks for making me laugh while helping me with the dishes. Those are the moments that get me through the week. And by the way, do I really scream at the book when I'm reading the latest Harry Potter novel? Oh, and yes, we can get two copies of Book 7. Shall we stamp them "His" and "Hers" then?
My dear husband, I treasure you. Thanks for making me laugh while helping me with the dishes. Those are the moments that get me through the week. And by the way, do I really scream at the book when I'm reading the latest Harry Potter novel? Oh, and yes, we can get two copies of Book 7. Shall we stamp them "His" and "Hers" then?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
My Karl
Dearest Karlito,
It's been three years today. Life is no kinder than when you left us, but at least there's been love and happy moments.
Three years, and I still think about you all the time, and wonder what you'd make of some silly scenario, or a thing I heard about on the news, or Lisa's boyfriend, or me. Would you still laugh at our old jokes, or are we too old for that now? Would you be worried about this war, would you smile at some nonsense, would you tell me more about some book you read that explains the true nature of why something backfired and society had let yet another criminal go free? Would you tell Lisa to leave that foolish man already, because clearly he will never appreciate her the way you did when the two of you were together?
Three years, and I wonder if you'd be married by now, and to whom. Would you have a teaching job, or be working on your Master's degree? Would you still live with your parents, or would you be on your own in a bachelor pad like your brother? Would I be going to your house once or twice a month so we could cook something fun that we'd been craving? Would you be making plans to go back to Fresno to visit the families you taught during your mission? Would you still make cornbread out of sour milk? Would you still make up Quotes pages filled with all the dumb things I'd told you? Would you let me highlight your hair again? I promise, this time I won't trick you by using the big size H crochet needle instead of the little itty bitty one that comes with the highlighting cap. But really, you did look great with all that blond hair.
Would you and I still be as close as we once were? Would I come to you when my husband does some strange man thing that requires an explanation? Would my kids call you Uncle Karl? Would my husband laugh at us, and how goofy we are when we get together? (Actually, I can answer that one: yes, he would. He still does.)
Three years, and I still laugh at all our old jokes, at the pictures of us acting goofy.
Three years, and I still want to talk to you for the sheer pleasure of good conversation.
Three years, and I still love you, and there's an empty spot in my soul where you're supposed to be.
Three years, and I still don't know what to do, except go on.
Love always,
Me
P.S. HOOTERS! (Heh, you thought I forgot, didn't you!)
It's been three years today. Life is no kinder than when you left us, but at least there's been love and happy moments.
Three years, and I still think about you all the time, and wonder what you'd make of some silly scenario, or a thing I heard about on the news, or Lisa's boyfriend, or me. Would you still laugh at our old jokes, or are we too old for that now? Would you be worried about this war, would you smile at some nonsense, would you tell me more about some book you read that explains the true nature of why something backfired and society had let yet another criminal go free? Would you tell Lisa to leave that foolish man already, because clearly he will never appreciate her the way you did when the two of you were together?
Three years, and I wonder if you'd be married by now, and to whom. Would you have a teaching job, or be working on your Master's degree? Would you still live with your parents, or would you be on your own in a bachelor pad like your brother? Would I be going to your house once or twice a month so we could cook something fun that we'd been craving? Would you be making plans to go back to Fresno to visit the families you taught during your mission? Would you still make cornbread out of sour milk? Would you still make up Quotes pages filled with all the dumb things I'd told you? Would you let me highlight your hair again? I promise, this time I won't trick you by using the big size H crochet needle instead of the little itty bitty one that comes with the highlighting cap. But really, you did look great with all that blond hair.
Would you and I still be as close as we once were? Would I come to you when my husband does some strange man thing that requires an explanation? Would my kids call you Uncle Karl? Would my husband laugh at us, and how goofy we are when we get together? (Actually, I can answer that one: yes, he would. He still does.)
Three years, and I still laugh at all our old jokes, at the pictures of us acting goofy.
Three years, and I still want to talk to you for the sheer pleasure of good conversation.
Three years, and I still love you, and there's an empty spot in my soul where you're supposed to be.
Three years, and I still don't know what to do, except go on.
Love always,
Me
P.S. HOOTERS! (Heh, you thought I forgot, didn't you!)
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Meez-sles!
So many things to do, so many other things I'd rather be doing instead. Like creating this Meez!
Yes, that's the skinny version of me, Cubmaster style!
What about you?
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Insomniac Movie Review: Howl's Moving Castle
Howl's Moving Castle Directed by Hayao Miyazaki
An amazing film, beautiful and thought provoking. Although it is certainly adapted by the novel (of same name) by Diana Wynne Johnson, the film departs from the source material to examine the harsh effects of war on the central characters and the world they live in.
The central plot revolves around a girl, Sophie, who falls under a witch's curse to become a 90-year-old woman. I could go on and on about how she comes to interact with the Wizard Howl and have a positive effect on the people around her as she struggles to overcome her own curse, but I won't. It's much more fun to watch it unfold than to be told about it. One thing about Miyazaki, he loves to tell a good story. It is not by accident that John Lasseter and Brad Bird (Pixar geniuses of storycrafting) have raved about Miyazaki in general and this film in particular. Well, okay, it's more than coincidence; the English dubbing was directed by Pete Docter (also of the Pixar genius clan). But directing the English voices is not nearly the same as directing the movie itself, and Miyazaki does a superior job.
The warfare in this story is not glorified, like some kind of Richard Donner movie or G.I. Joe cartoon. It is made very clear that war and violence disrupt the peace and beauty of everyday life, and it may scare younger children. The war storyline can easily be construed as a judgement of the current wars in the Middle East, but it holds true for any war that is fought close to someone's home. Remember the lesson of Tolkein, and look for applicability to many aspects of our lives, not allegory to one particular situation.
The animation is, quite simply, superb. Perhaps the people's faces are typical of anime, but the scenery is outstanding and the transformations astounded me. I wish I had a Hi-Def TV just for this movie.
Be aware, parents, that there is very slight, brief nudity. The central character is even trying to look away, so it's not like some gratuitous derriere footage. Honestly, if you think a quick side view of a cartoon butt is an issue, then you really need to see a therapist. Your kids look at their own butts in the full length mirror, people, whether you know it or not. Get over it.
If I must address a perceived flaw, it is that the ending seems too neat. However, it should be noted that the book itself has an absurdly neat ending, in which myriad storylines are all wrapped up in so concise a manner that I found myself checking to make sure I hadn't accidentally skipped some pages. So get over it, critics.
Rent this movie. You'll love it.
Friday, July 21, 2006
I wish less really was more
Dear Bizarro Dad,
You are bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Stop buying lunch every day. I make more than enough dinner for you to have leftovers the next day. You accuse me of "not making enough," for you to take to work, when really you just leave it in the fridge all week, and my dad ends up throwing it out when he cleans the fridge out on Sunday.
Stop buying shit you think we "need." We don't need it. You just want it.
Stop buying excessive gifts for the kids. A game or toy once in a while is fine. But they'd be better served if we saved some of that money to use for food, or clothes, or school supplies.
We agreed upon a $40 per month allowance for each of us. That's per month, not per week. Stay within that sum, please.
You are not a rich man. Stop pretending you are.
Start asking your brother for his half of the damn Bally's membership fee. I hate paying $68 dollars a month for HIM to go to the gym. I also hate it that you signed up for Bally's AT ALL. I told you I had a bad feeling about that "free trial." Now we'll be paying for it for years, and you don't even GO to the gym.
Last month, you brought us down to a zero balance in checking with less than $50 in savings. You were sorry, you were humbled, you promised you wouldn't do it anymore. You haven't learned anything. Not a damn thing.
You keep buying tools to have for work. I'm trying to pay off your credit card, and you just keep buying shit with it. You told me when you first took this job that you wouldn't need to buy a lot of tools. Apparently that was a lie, because this is the second $400 tool shopping spree you've been on since you went to work there a few months ago.
You purposely leave me in charge of the family budget, claiming that none of the bills will get paid otherwise, then you ignore me when I say "we cannot buy ANYTHING except groceries and gas this week or the bills won't get paid," then you get all pissy when I tell you later in the month that we can't afford to go out to the movies because of said bills, and you make ME into the bad guy. You especially hate it when I point out that the reason we can't go to the movies is that you've been spending all this money.
You don't like to be treated like a child, but you keep acting like one! And I can't just let you run off doing whatever the hell you want, because we have two small kids to support! But I suppose I'm ineffective, since you clearly run off doing whatever the hell you want with our money anyway.
You put me in this position, and then you wonder why I have headaches, why I always seem sad, why money issues always result in an argument.
I hate this.
I hate you, sometimes.
Maybe if you got off your damn XBox and paid any attention to what's going on with the people around you, you might understand why I'm so upset.
(By the way, your stupid XBox 360 keeps costing us money. It wasn't enough that it cost $500 from the get-go, now you have to subscribe to XBox Live ($54) and keep buying "points" so that you can do something as trivial as change your handle ($20).)
--Me
You are bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Stop buying lunch every day. I make more than enough dinner for you to have leftovers the next day. You accuse me of "not making enough," for you to take to work, when really you just leave it in the fridge all week, and my dad ends up throwing it out when he cleans the fridge out on Sunday.
Stop buying shit you think we "need." We don't need it. You just want it.
Stop buying excessive gifts for the kids. A game or toy once in a while is fine. But they'd be better served if we saved some of that money to use for food, or clothes, or school supplies.
We agreed upon a $40 per month allowance for each of us. That's per month, not per week. Stay within that sum, please.
You are not a rich man. Stop pretending you are.
Start asking your brother for his half of the damn Bally's membership fee. I hate paying $68 dollars a month for HIM to go to the gym. I also hate it that you signed up for Bally's AT ALL. I told you I had a bad feeling about that "free trial." Now we'll be paying for it for years, and you don't even GO to the gym.
Last month, you brought us down to a zero balance in checking with less than $50 in savings. You were sorry, you were humbled, you promised you wouldn't do it anymore. You haven't learned anything. Not a damn thing.
You keep buying tools to have for work. I'm trying to pay off your credit card, and you just keep buying shit with it. You told me when you first took this job that you wouldn't need to buy a lot of tools. Apparently that was a lie, because this is the second $400 tool shopping spree you've been on since you went to work there a few months ago.
You purposely leave me in charge of the family budget, claiming that none of the bills will get paid otherwise, then you ignore me when I say "we cannot buy ANYTHING except groceries and gas this week or the bills won't get paid," then you get all pissy when I tell you later in the month that we can't afford to go out to the movies because of said bills, and you make ME into the bad guy. You especially hate it when I point out that the reason we can't go to the movies is that you've been spending all this money.
You don't like to be treated like a child, but you keep acting like one! And I can't just let you run off doing whatever the hell you want, because we have two small kids to support! But I suppose I'm ineffective, since you clearly run off doing whatever the hell you want with our money anyway.
You put me in this position, and then you wonder why I have headaches, why I always seem sad, why money issues always result in an argument.
I hate this.
I hate you, sometimes.
Maybe if you got off your damn XBox and paid any attention to what's going on with the people around you, you might understand why I'm so upset.
(By the way, your stupid XBox 360 keeps costing us money. It wasn't enough that it cost $500 from the get-go, now you have to subscribe to XBox Live ($54) and keep buying "points" so that you can do something as trivial as change your handle ($20).)
--Me
Thursday, July 20, 2006
It's called Rooster Beak, not Rooster Sweet Tooth
On PBS, there is a very strange dude telling me that HIS version of pico de gallo (a type of salsa that is not cooked, and consists of certain chopped vegetables mixed with lemon juice) calls for mint instead of cilantro. Now I'm all for doing your own thing, but COME ON! Let's see, thats:
- 1 cup chopped tomatoes
- 1/2 cup chopped white onion
- 1/4 cup chopped fresh jalapeno
- 1 Tbsp minced garlic
- 2 Tbsp lemon juice
- salt and pepper, and
- 1/2 cup chopped mint??????
What the hell kind of wierdo show is this Barbeque University?
Although, come to think of it, that might be perfect for my old pal Sue, who claimed she was allergic to cilantro....nah, who am I kidding? The perfect substitute for cilantro is Italian parsley. You can take that mint and shove it up your firebox, BBQ Steve!
There was an article in yesterday's paper about Clerks II, but a sizable portion seemed to be about Kevin Smith's feelings about Jersey Girl. Tremendous flop at the box office and all that. According to the interviewer, Smith brought it up frequently, but still maintained that it's not a sore spot but does hurt. Uh, Kevin, sorry man, but that's the definition of a sore spot.
The thing is, I liked Jersey Girl. It's in my Netflix Queue. My mother loved it. It was thoughtful and tender, funny, and had attractive people in it. All the things you want from a PG-13 non-action movie. But because of the Bennifer aspect, and the whole Gigli thing, people just didn't want to go watch this movie. It's a shame, really, because Jennifer Lopez is barely even IN the movie. She dies in, like, the first five or ten minutes. Honestly, if that's not enough of a reason to watch, I don't know what is.
(Don't flame me. We watch people die in movies all the time. Might as well work out our feelings about an actor while we're doing so. Besides, I am well aware that it was a sad scene and that Lopez played it well.)
Kevin, let it go. I know it hurts because you spent two years on that movie and nobody seemed to appreciate it. But really, it was good. And you didn't have to worry about Joel Siegel trying to attract attention to himself during the screening. ;)
The thing is, I liked Jersey Girl. It's in my Netflix Queue. My mother loved it. It was thoughtful and tender, funny, and had attractive people in it. All the things you want from a PG-13 non-action movie. But because of the Bennifer aspect, and the whole Gigli thing, people just didn't want to go watch this movie. It's a shame, really, because Jennifer Lopez is barely even IN the movie. She dies in, like, the first five or ten minutes. Honestly, if that's not enough of a reason to watch, I don't know what is.
(Don't flame me. We watch people die in movies all the time. Might as well work out our feelings about an actor while we're doing so. Besides, I am well aware that it was a sad scene and that Lopez played it well.)
Kevin, let it go. I know it hurts because you spent two years on that movie and nobody seemed to appreciate it. But really, it was good. And you didn't have to worry about Joel Siegel trying to attract attention to himself during the screening. ;)
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
"They say a bullet always tells the truth..."
First person to correctly identify the movie from which today's title comes from gets a gold star.
*****
My oldest, when she gets a runny nose, tells me she has "burgers" in her nose. I wonder if this is what she's been telling my youngest. It would explain why the little one likes to eat her nose pickings.
*****
My husband has discovered a new game for his XBox 360. He and his brother (who still lives with us) joined a clan on XBox Live so that they can play Chrome Hounds with this group of people all the time. They enjoy the game because it's challenging and requires tactical planning, as opposed to pointing and shooting at whoever comes their way.
I hate it. Not only have I not been able to watch my own TV for days without having to fuss about them hijacking it, but Bizarro Dad has been ignoring the children, and J wasted his time with his son this weekend by making the boy watch movies and play computer games while he, J, took turns playing the XBox. Gina has been misbehaving with the express purpose of getting her father to interact with her. ("Do I have to call your Daddy in here?" *smile* "Yes!") I go to do my Cub Scout thing one evening, and when I come back the baby is streaking and there are stickers, food, and trash strewn across the living room floor, and all the while my husband has been sitting in his rolly chair in front of the TV with the wireless headset on (to talk to his clan) and the wireless remote glued to his fingers.
XBox 360: A marvel of 21st century technology and the downfall of my family.
*****
Now that he got a new daytime job, my brother-in-law has sent his dog to live with my mother-in-law. Thank goodness. I found my family heirloom quilt lying on the floor in the dog's enclosure, with poop on it. Not amusing to me in the least.
*****
There have been a lot of highly publicized teenage killings/attempted murders around here lately. Seriously, do these kids have nothing better to do with their summers? What I thought was strange was when I heard someone say, over the weekend, that the way to stop this is to spend time talking to our kids. I would agree, except that these events occurred either at night while parents slept (during the party hours), or in the middle of the day, when parents were at work. You can't prevent violence with a 24 hour filibuster. These are teenagers, not 7-year-olds. You can tell them "this is wrong" all you want, but they will decide for themselves what they want to do with their free time. The key, I think, is giving them something else to do in addition to the sit-down talks. The Boys and Girls Club, or a summer job, or summer school, or camp, or a big project around the house, or SOMETHING. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.
*****
My oldest, when she gets a runny nose, tells me she has "burgers" in her nose. I wonder if this is what she's been telling my youngest. It would explain why the little one likes to eat her nose pickings.
*****
My husband has discovered a new game for his XBox 360. He and his brother (who still lives with us) joined a clan on XBox Live so that they can play Chrome Hounds with this group of people all the time. They enjoy the game because it's challenging and requires tactical planning, as opposed to pointing and shooting at whoever comes their way.
I hate it. Not only have I not been able to watch my own TV for days without having to fuss about them hijacking it, but Bizarro Dad has been ignoring the children, and J wasted his time with his son this weekend by making the boy watch movies and play computer games while he, J, took turns playing the XBox. Gina has been misbehaving with the express purpose of getting her father to interact with her. ("Do I have to call your Daddy in here?" *smile* "Yes!") I go to do my Cub Scout thing one evening, and when I come back the baby is streaking and there are stickers, food, and trash strewn across the living room floor, and all the while my husband has been sitting in his rolly chair in front of the TV with the wireless headset on (to talk to his clan) and the wireless remote glued to his fingers.
XBox 360: A marvel of 21st century technology and the downfall of my family.
*****
Now that he got a new daytime job, my brother-in-law has sent his dog to live with my mother-in-law. Thank goodness. I found my family heirloom quilt lying on the floor in the dog's enclosure, with poop on it. Not amusing to me in the least.
*****
There have been a lot of highly publicized teenage killings/attempted murders around here lately. Seriously, do these kids have nothing better to do with their summers? What I thought was strange was when I heard someone say, over the weekend, that the way to stop this is to spend time talking to our kids. I would agree, except that these events occurred either at night while parents slept (during the party hours), or in the middle of the day, when parents were at work. You can't prevent violence with a 24 hour filibuster. These are teenagers, not 7-year-olds. You can tell them "this is wrong" all you want, but they will decide for themselves what they want to do with their free time. The key, I think, is giving them something else to do in addition to the sit-down talks. The Boys and Girls Club, or a summer job, or summer school, or camp, or a big project around the house, or SOMETHING. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Gomer Piles
My brother-in-law's puppy dog keeps leaving piles around the inside of our house.
My father is trying to be patient about this, but he refuses to clean up the mess. I can't say I blame him.
I don't want to be the one getting bitched at over the toilet habits of a dog that isn't even mine.
Dude, get off my husband's XBox and pay attention to your dog.
My father is trying to be patient about this, but he refuses to clean up the mess. I can't say I blame him.
I don't want to be the one getting bitched at over the toilet habits of a dog that isn't even mine.
Dude, get off my husband's XBox and pay attention to your dog.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Old Boyfriend letters
Dear Notorious D.I.C.,
I don't hate you anymore.
I just wish you would apologize, so that I can finally finish forgiving you. It's been many years, we're both married now, and I'd like to think we can talk about this just enough for you to tell me you're sorry. I think I deserve that much, after everything that happened.
Maybe someday you'll say it. I'd rather it be sooner than later, but I guess if you haven't said anything in the last seven or eight years, I can hardly expect it any time in the near future.
Perhaps you think you can't acknowledge what went on between us, because we're both married now. And maybe you'd be right to think that. But honestly, saying, "I'm sorry I was such a dick," hardly constitutes an affair.
Well, whatever. You never were good at that sort of thing.
****************
Dear Monster,
You saw the bruises on that pregnant girl's arms, yet you maintained that staying married to her husband was a good thing. I'm glad she divorced his sniveling ass, though I wish she'd done it much sooner.
My own bruises healed, but my contempt for you has never died.
Idiot.
****************
Dear Ninth Grade Boyfriend,
I was an emotional wreck at the time. There was some serious family drama going down. Whatever animosity I had at the time was not about you.
I'm sorry. You were a good guy. I just wasn't ready for something as real as a serious relationship with you.
I don't hate you anymore.
I just wish you would apologize, so that I can finally finish forgiving you. It's been many years, we're both married now, and I'd like to think we can talk about this just enough for you to tell me you're sorry. I think I deserve that much, after everything that happened.
Maybe someday you'll say it. I'd rather it be sooner than later, but I guess if you haven't said anything in the last seven or eight years, I can hardly expect it any time in the near future.
Perhaps you think you can't acknowledge what went on between us, because we're both married now. And maybe you'd be right to think that. But honestly, saying, "I'm sorry I was such a dick," hardly constitutes an affair.
Well, whatever. You never were good at that sort of thing.
****************
Dear Monster,
You saw the bruises on that pregnant girl's arms, yet you maintained that staying married to her husband was a good thing. I'm glad she divorced his sniveling ass, though I wish she'd done it much sooner.
My own bruises healed, but my contempt for you has never died.
Idiot.
****************
Dear Ninth Grade Boyfriend,
I was an emotional wreck at the time. There was some serious family drama going down. Whatever animosity I had at the time was not about you.
I'm sorry. You were a good guy. I just wasn't ready for something as real as a serious relationship with you.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Insomniac Movie Rundown
Last weekend the husband and I did a double feature: DaVinci Code, followed by Lake House. I'll keep it short, since I want to talk about other movies, too.
DaVinci Code: If it's still at the theater in your area, and you still haven't seen it but are thinking about it, allow me to save you some money by telling you to wait until it's available on DVD. Don't get me wrong, it's not horribly bad. It's just...you don't gain anything by seeing it on a large screen versus a smaller screen. The acting is not superior, even though it IS Tom Hanks. And the car chase scene? Ugh. The camera work in that scene is simply terrible! Whoever directed that (and I'm guessing it was second unit, as most action scenes are) seemed to believe that shots of a tiny car driving backwards and crazy in the narrow streets of Paris is not enough to keep us on the edge of our seats. No, you need to shake up the camera to shake up the audience, or at least that's what these people think. Personally, I was glad I didn't have epilepsy like my best friend, because I surely would have had a seizure from the strobe-like effect of this scene.
Lake House: You know, I've defended this movie (clearly, critics hate it) and encouraged people to give it a chance. But the fact is, I was happy with it because I only wanted two things from it: to see a romance that might make me cry, and to ogle Keanu Reeves. If you want some sort of cultural experience from your films, then you need to skip this and head to the Anjelika. If you want to see nude/shirtless people, go see X-Men 3. If you're a girl, and you want to cry, or look at Keanu in all his hot-40-year-old-in-a-turtleneck glory, come right here. Truthfully, you should not expect more than that. There are some gaping plotholes, and while you might be able to overlook them for the hour and half while you watch, you won't be able to get over them once you get to the car and start thinking about it. I won't go into it, lest I spoil the movie for you. I will say, ladies, leave the men at home, because they will not enjoy it as much as you, and will feel as though they've paid $17 for idiocy. Go with some girlfriends so that you can weep freely.
Doogal: Available on DVD. It's premise, that a band of animals must travel the world in search of magic diamonds in order to imprison an evil ice wizard, is more or less a cartoon version of Lord of the Rings. In fact, there are numerous references to Lord of the Rings, as well as The Matrix, Bend it Like Beckham, and heaven knows what else. You know how Shrek and Shrek 2 do a few little bits to parody whatever new movies have come out recently? Doogal does the same thing, only it never ends, and the material doesn't have to be "recent" or even "from this decade." There's a Bone Thugs N Harmony joke in there that I found especially amusing, because I recall a time when that was all my brother listened to for a solid year. The memory of his stereo blasting all hours of the day and night still sends annoying signals to the rest of my body. This movie did scare my kids at first, but when they sat in my lap to watch it, there was no problem. We rented it, but most likely will not buy it. Note to the casting director: casting Jon Stewart of The Daily Show as the villain was genius. Casting Whoopi Goldberg as the cow was not. Y'all really need to pick a voice that fits the character, not the voice that everyone will recognize whether it serves the character or not. You're basically paying bookoos of money for someone to mess up your movie for you.
DaVinci Code: If it's still at the theater in your area, and you still haven't seen it but are thinking about it, allow me to save you some money by telling you to wait until it's available on DVD. Don't get me wrong, it's not horribly bad. It's just...you don't gain anything by seeing it on a large screen versus a smaller screen. The acting is not superior, even though it IS Tom Hanks. And the car chase scene? Ugh. The camera work in that scene is simply terrible! Whoever directed that (and I'm guessing it was second unit, as most action scenes are) seemed to believe that shots of a tiny car driving backwards and crazy in the narrow streets of Paris is not enough to keep us on the edge of our seats. No, you need to shake up the camera to shake up the audience, or at least that's what these people think. Personally, I was glad I didn't have epilepsy like my best friend, because I surely would have had a seizure from the strobe-like effect of this scene.
Lake House: You know, I've defended this movie (clearly, critics hate it) and encouraged people to give it a chance. But the fact is, I was happy with it because I only wanted two things from it: to see a romance that might make me cry, and to ogle Keanu Reeves. If you want some sort of cultural experience from your films, then you need to skip this and head to the Anjelika. If you want to see nude/shirtless people, go see X-Men 3. If you're a girl, and you want to cry, or look at Keanu in all his hot-40-year-old-in-a-turtleneck glory, come right here. Truthfully, you should not expect more than that. There are some gaping plotholes, and while you might be able to overlook them for the hour and half while you watch, you won't be able to get over them once you get to the car and start thinking about it. I won't go into it, lest I spoil the movie for you. I will say, ladies, leave the men at home, because they will not enjoy it as much as you, and will feel as though they've paid $17 for idiocy. Go with some girlfriends so that you can weep freely.
Doogal: Available on DVD. It's premise, that a band of animals must travel the world in search of magic diamonds in order to imprison an evil ice wizard, is more or less a cartoon version of Lord of the Rings. In fact, there are numerous references to Lord of the Rings, as well as The Matrix, Bend it Like Beckham, and heaven knows what else. You know how Shrek and Shrek 2 do a few little bits to parody whatever new movies have come out recently? Doogal does the same thing, only it never ends, and the material doesn't have to be "recent" or even "from this decade." There's a Bone Thugs N Harmony joke in there that I found especially amusing, because I recall a time when that was all my brother listened to for a solid year. The memory of his stereo blasting all hours of the day and night still sends annoying signals to the rest of my body. This movie did scare my kids at first, but when they sat in my lap to watch it, there was no problem. We rented it, but most likely will not buy it. Note to the casting director: casting Jon Stewart of The Daily Show as the villain was genius. Casting Whoopi Goldberg as the cow was not. Y'all really need to pick a voice that fits the character, not the voice that everyone will recognize whether it serves the character or not. You're basically paying bookoos of money for someone to mess up your movie for you.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Insomniac Movie Review: Cars
Title: Cars
Starring: Luke Wilson, Paul Freakin' Newman!, Bonnie Hunt (her third Pixar movie), Richard Petty (as a car painted Petty Blue, no less), Cheech Marin, and Larry the Cable Guy (this is the first time I've ever heard his voice and not wanted to rip my own ears off)
MPAA Rating: G
Plot Summary: Your standard jerk-who-looks-down-on-everyone-finds-himself-a-fish-out-of-water-and-learns-the-true-meaning-of-friendship story, with a hint of finding-a-hidden-treasure-and-learning-its-value and a dash of helping-old-things-become-new-again. Oh, and a little pinch of romance, but not enough to make the kids groan.
Okay, so it's a kids movie, but one the parents can enjoy without getting bored (coughCuriousGeorgecough). A Pixar film, no less. Do you really need more of a reason to schlep the kiddies out to the box office? You do? Okay, I'll lay it out for you.
Starring: Luke Wilson, Paul Freakin' Newman!, Bonnie Hunt (her third Pixar movie), Richard Petty (as a car painted Petty Blue, no less), Cheech Marin, and Larry the Cable Guy (this is the first time I've ever heard his voice and not wanted to rip my own ears off)
MPAA Rating: G
Plot Summary: Your standard jerk-who-looks-down-on-everyone-finds-himself-a-fish-out-of-water-and-learns-the-true-meaning-of-friendship story, with a hint of finding-a-hidden-treasure-and-learning-its-value and a dash of helping-old-things-become-new-again. Oh, and a little pinch of romance, but not enough to make the kids groan.
Okay, so it's a kids movie, but one the parents can enjoy without getting bored (coughCuriousGeorgecough). A Pixar film, no less. Do you really need more of a reason to schlep the kiddies out to the box office? You do? Okay, I'll lay it out for you.
- The story is good. It's not The Incredibles, I'll grant you, but Pixar has always been in service of the story. Yes, it's predictable, but it's still good, it still entertains, and it still rings true. And really, it's only predictable to adults because we're old fogeys who've seen too many movies. To a child, it's all new.
- The jokes work for everyone. My husband has been going on and on about them. Non-stop. Since Tuesday. No kidding.
- Paul Newman! Seriously! You can't love movies and not see something with Paul Newman in it. It's against the law in 49 states and the District of Columbia.
- The animation is simply amazing. I'm not kidding. From the very beginning of the film, Pixar animators do things that trick the eyes. These people have gotten so good, I almost forgot I was looking at CG animation in some places. If for no other reason than to marvel at man's accomplishment in technology and artistry, you should see this movie. And I can tell you right now, watching the DVD on my 25" TV screen will not do justice the the sights in this movie. To be fully appreciated, this movie simply MUST be seen on a cinema screen. Or, possibly, on my sis-in-law's digital projector screen that takes up her whole living room wall.
- Larry the Cable Guy, for once in his life, makes things better and funnier with his presence. I know, I couldn't believe it either! But it's true! He really works in this movie. Granted it's not such a stretch for Larry to play a character who is, basically, a total goober. But he's not raunchy or disgusting here, which instantly makes him 20 times more likeable.
- Tractor tipping. Weirdest thing ever, but so funny.
- You know how when you get caught up in watching a NASCAR race, and you start getting bored and secretly hope for a car crash to break the monotony, but then you feel all bad about wishing that an innocent person would have a crash? You can totally wish for an accident in this movie and not feel guilty, because it's a cartoon.
- This movie will fill you with nostalgia. I sat there wishing I could go back to these old places, these small towns. I was ready to plan out a road trip to San Antonio by way of US90, just to see what kind of places I would spot along the way.
- Cars already have personality; you see a minivan, you assign an impression of the person who drives it, like "Soccer mom." This movie is just the natural progression of an accepted idea.
- The cartoon short "One Man Band" is hilarious. Make sure you get to the theater early!
- The ending credits cracked us all up. Watch them! Don't miss out!
- Did I mention Paul Newman?
Monday, June 12, 2006
Big Brother at the Photo Lab
You'd have to be stupid to take pictures of your naked body, send the film to a 2-day or mail-away photo lab, and not expect someone other than yourself to see your glory (or shame, as the case may be).
But you'd be an absolute idiot to send that same film to a 1-hour photo lab.
The tech who takes your film? She's probably the one who will actually stick her hands into the black box and pull your film out of its nifty little plastic canister to dip it in developer fluid. She will probably be the one who sticks the film into the machine, where it uses those film negatives to produce pictures in just a few short minutes. She will look through every single photo, checking that each one has developed properly into whatever it's supposed to look like. Anything that is all grey, or excessively blurry, etc., will be thrown away. She will see these nude photos. She will see the face (if there is one) that goes with the body. So when you come back to pick up those pictures, she will instantly know the most intimate details of your anatomy.
Furthermore, she knows who you are, has your name and phone number written on that little envelope you handed her, and have the rest of your info if you pay with plastic. She can track you down and stalk you if she really wants to. And heaven help you if your tech is a big burly dude who doesn't understand "boundaries."
And finally, in case you think that tech will be the only one to see the pictures and probably won't make a big deal out of it, I can assure you that the opposite is true. That tech will either keep the original photos and not give them to you at all, or print extra copies unbeknownst to you. The pictures will be kept in a special little box that is filled with the nude photos from other customers who've been so foolish in the past. These pictures will occasionally be passed around the store for all to see. If you're lucky, most of the store clerks will be like me and not want to see that raunchy crap, and will not look in the box. Unfortunately, for every clerk like me, there are five clerks who are not like me, and will at least give a cursory glance if not a full inspection of all the nude pics. Furthermore, store management will most likely occasionally take the box and empty it of its contents, to either be shredded or kept in the manager's private collection.
Trust me on this. You really don't want to get stares every time you walk into your favorite photo lab.
Author's note: My experience in this matter is limited to my previous employment at a Wal-Mart in the 1990s, when I was told it was store policy to confiscate and keep on file all nude photos processed in the one-hour lab. This was not told to me directly by a member of management, nor was I told if this policy held for all stores or only our own. I do not know what current policy is in effect. So don't sue me. I don't have money anyway.
But you'd be an absolute idiot to send that same film to a 1-hour photo lab.
The tech who takes your film? She's probably the one who will actually stick her hands into the black box and pull your film out of its nifty little plastic canister to dip it in developer fluid. She will probably be the one who sticks the film into the machine, where it uses those film negatives to produce pictures in just a few short minutes. She will look through every single photo, checking that each one has developed properly into whatever it's supposed to look like. Anything that is all grey, or excessively blurry, etc., will be thrown away. She will see these nude photos. She will see the face (if there is one) that goes with the body. So when you come back to pick up those pictures, she will instantly know the most intimate details of your anatomy.
Furthermore, she knows who you are, has your name and phone number written on that little envelope you handed her, and have the rest of your info if you pay with plastic. She can track you down and stalk you if she really wants to. And heaven help you if your tech is a big burly dude who doesn't understand "boundaries."
And finally, in case you think that tech will be the only one to see the pictures and probably won't make a big deal out of it, I can assure you that the opposite is true. That tech will either keep the original photos and not give them to you at all, or print extra copies unbeknownst to you. The pictures will be kept in a special little box that is filled with the nude photos from other customers who've been so foolish in the past. These pictures will occasionally be passed around the store for all to see. If you're lucky, most of the store clerks will be like me and not want to see that raunchy crap, and will not look in the box. Unfortunately, for every clerk like me, there are five clerks who are not like me, and will at least give a cursory glance if not a full inspection of all the nude pics. Furthermore, store management will most likely occasionally take the box and empty it of its contents, to either be shredded or kept in the manager's private collection.
Trust me on this. You really don't want to get stares every time you walk into your favorite photo lab.
Author's note: My experience in this matter is limited to my previous employment at a Wal-Mart in the 1990s, when I was told it was store policy to confiscate and keep on file all nude photos processed in the one-hour lab. This was not told to me directly by a member of management, nor was I told if this policy held for all stores or only our own. I do not know what current policy is in effect. So don't sue me. I don't have money anyway.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Insomniac Movie Review: X-Men 3: Last Stand
Title: X3: The Last Stand
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Plot Summary: A pharmaceutical company generates a "cure" for mutation. Some mutants embrace it, others protest it, and Magneto exploits the situation by forming an army, intent on destroying the source of the cure. Jean Grey, who "died" in the previous movie, is found alive, but unable to contain her power. The X-Men find themselves defending humans (not to mention the source of the very cure they despise) against Magneto's mutant militia. Ethical questions arise, but they are too numerous to detail.
Should your kids watch it? I do not recommend letting the little ones see this movie. Then you'd have to explain why that woman has her legs around that guy, and you don't want to go there with your six-year-old. I'd say 12 and up.
My opinion about this movie: Three words. IT. KICKS. ASS!
What, you want more yakking? Okay. This movie has the character relationships you like (although I think there could have been more exploration to this than was on the film). This movie has the fighting you action buffs want. This movie has some awesome special effects, and they don't even look fake (are you taking notes, George Lucas?) This movie has new, awesome mutations that freaked me right out. It has more famous mutants from Marvel Comics. Yeah, that's right, Juggernaut is there, along with ArchAngel, Colossus, Shadowcat (called Kitty here), and heaven knows who else. Forgive me, comic lovers, but it has been a good 12-15 years since I last read an X-Men comic, so I don't know the name of that dude who multiplies himself, and I can't remember it from watching the movie only once.
One more thing. When you see this movie, be sure to STAY to the END OF THE CREDITS. You will not be disappointed.
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Plot Summary: A pharmaceutical company generates a "cure" for mutation. Some mutants embrace it, others protest it, and Magneto exploits the situation by forming an army, intent on destroying the source of the cure. Jean Grey, who "died" in the previous movie, is found alive, but unable to contain her power. The X-Men find themselves defending humans (not to mention the source of the very cure they despise) against Magneto's mutant militia. Ethical questions arise, but they are too numerous to detail.
Should your kids watch it? I do not recommend letting the little ones see this movie. Then you'd have to explain why that woman has her legs around that guy, and you don't want to go there with your six-year-old. I'd say 12 and up.
My opinion about this movie: Three words. IT. KICKS. ASS!
What, you want more yakking? Okay. This movie has the character relationships you like (although I think there could have been more exploration to this than was on the film). This movie has the fighting you action buffs want. This movie has some awesome special effects, and they don't even look fake (are you taking notes, George Lucas?) This movie has new, awesome mutations that freaked me right out. It has more famous mutants from Marvel Comics. Yeah, that's right, Juggernaut is there, along with ArchAngel, Colossus, Shadowcat (called Kitty here), and heaven knows who else. Forgive me, comic lovers, but it has been a good 12-15 years since I last read an X-Men comic, so I don't know the name of that dude who multiplies himself, and I can't remember it from watching the movie only once.
One more thing. When you see this movie, be sure to STAY to the END OF THE CREDITS. You will not be disappointed.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Game Review: DaVinci Code for PS2
Since Justin over at Part Time Gamer is so busy with his new house, and he's in the middle of a Tourist Trophy Tournament anyway, I thought I'd do my bit for gamer kind and give you my take on The DaVinci Code for PS2.
First of all, I should tell you that I've neither read the book nor seen the movie, so I don't have many preconceived ideals with which to compare the experience of playing the game. I will say that, in theory, the book is naturally better suited to become a game than a film, if you're the type who'd rather be involved in the mystery than watch someone else solve it.
Yes, in the tradition of Soul Reaver and Escape from Monkey Island, this is your basic puzzle game. Just the kind of thing I enjoy. There's a great deal of exposition, though, and it takes F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Fortunately, you can just press a button to skip conversations you feel are not important or have already heard. The Blockbuster box cover recommends reading the book to be more successful with the game. I say you can get by with just seeing the movie previews and reading a few film reviews online. You should know there's a lot of seek-and-find going on, collecting clues and bonus items. You cannot get past a level until you've found all the necessary clues. There's also some actual cryptography for you, but it's mostly just letter substitution. You can even press the circle button for hints. The most annoying part is the torch-lighting puzzle (underground grotto in the garden), in which you have to figure out the correct sequence for lighting all five fire pans without having them shut each other off. I was not able to solve this without consulting a walk-through. In fact, even the guy who wrote the walk-through couldn't solve it without spening 45 minutes running around lighting the fire pans. Fortunately, someone else solved it, and sent it in to him. I'll print it at the end of this post.
Apparently game designers feel a game is just not worth playing if you don't get to fight with somebody, and in accordance with that theory you will have to fight several cops, goons, and monks. I was afraid I'd be facing something reminscent of Street Fighter 2, and would be ill-equipped to get past the first stage. However, it turns out that combat is determined not by memorizing complicated combinations to obscure moves that would never happen in the real world. At the bottom of the screen you are given a series of buttons to push. You must push these in the order in which they appear in a timely manner. Simple hand-eye coordination. And if even the timely manner part is too much for you, you can easily pause the game (mid-fight, even), go to the options menu, and switch the combat setting to Easy.
Okay, problems. Since there's so much exposition, so many clues and historical information, you are provided with a sort of notebook (R2 button) that keeps track of all the info you've been given so far. The problem comes when this notebook begins to give you info that you've not yet come across: clues you haven't found yet, poems you aren't supposed to have read, whatever. This "jumping the gun" thing seems to be present in some of the dialogue as well. But, if you've already read the book or seen the movie, I suppose none of that matters anyway. One other notebook complaint: some mysterious glitch resulted in my notebook not storing info about the second cryptex, but skipping right to the third. And another thing: where were all these crypteces coming from, anyway? There weren't scenes explaining anything but the first one. Were they all inside each other, like some bizarre form of nesting dolls? A little explanation would have been nice.
The mystery wasn't such a big mystery after all. Even though, as I said, I'd never read the book or seen the film, I still figured out the twist before the ending actually got there. I tell you, it's all M. Night Shyamalan's fault, making you expect a twist at the end of everything. Now all the surprises are spoiled.
Overall impression: nice game and all, but not one that I could play over and over again. Honestly, if the point of a game is to solve a mystery, what's the point of solving it again? It took me two days to solve it, but I had lots of free time, being sick in bed. Someone working full time, I'd say you could reasonably expect to finish the whole thing by the time the game is due back at Blockbuster.
The Hint:
Imagine that as you walk into the grotto, with the door behind you, the fire pans/star points in front of you are clock points:
-----12-----
-10-------2-
---7----5---
Find the torch, light it with fire from one of the smaller statues, and then light the fire pans in the following order:
12-10-5-10-2-10-7
This will ensure all five points are lit at the same time, providing you with your next clue and your exit.
First of all, I should tell you that I've neither read the book nor seen the movie, so I don't have many preconceived ideals with which to compare the experience of playing the game. I will say that, in theory, the book is naturally better suited to become a game than a film, if you're the type who'd rather be involved in the mystery than watch someone else solve it.
Yes, in the tradition of Soul Reaver and Escape from Monkey Island, this is your basic puzzle game. Just the kind of thing I enjoy. There's a great deal of exposition, though, and it takes F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Fortunately, you can just press a button to skip conversations you feel are not important or have already heard. The Blockbuster box cover recommends reading the book to be more successful with the game. I say you can get by with just seeing the movie previews and reading a few film reviews online. You should know there's a lot of seek-and-find going on, collecting clues and bonus items. You cannot get past a level until you've found all the necessary clues. There's also some actual cryptography for you, but it's mostly just letter substitution. You can even press the circle button for hints. The most annoying part is the torch-lighting puzzle (underground grotto in the garden), in which you have to figure out the correct sequence for lighting all five fire pans without having them shut each other off. I was not able to solve this without consulting a walk-through. In fact, even the guy who wrote the walk-through couldn't solve it without spening 45 minutes running around lighting the fire pans. Fortunately, someone else solved it, and sent it in to him. I'll print it at the end of this post.
Apparently game designers feel a game is just not worth playing if you don't get to fight with somebody, and in accordance with that theory you will have to fight several cops, goons, and monks. I was afraid I'd be facing something reminscent of Street Fighter 2, and would be ill-equipped to get past the first stage. However, it turns out that combat is determined not by memorizing complicated combinations to obscure moves that would never happen in the real world. At the bottom of the screen you are given a series of buttons to push. You must push these in the order in which they appear in a timely manner. Simple hand-eye coordination. And if even the timely manner part is too much for you, you can easily pause the game (mid-fight, even), go to the options menu, and switch the combat setting to Easy.
Okay, problems. Since there's so much exposition, so many clues and historical information, you are provided with a sort of notebook (R2 button) that keeps track of all the info you've been given so far. The problem comes when this notebook begins to give you info that you've not yet come across: clues you haven't found yet, poems you aren't supposed to have read, whatever. This "jumping the gun" thing seems to be present in some of the dialogue as well. But, if you've already read the book or seen the movie, I suppose none of that matters anyway. One other notebook complaint: some mysterious glitch resulted in my notebook not storing info about the second cryptex, but skipping right to the third. And another thing: where were all these crypteces coming from, anyway? There weren't scenes explaining anything but the first one. Were they all inside each other, like some bizarre form of nesting dolls? A little explanation would have been nice.
The mystery wasn't such a big mystery after all. Even though, as I said, I'd never read the book or seen the film, I still figured out the twist before the ending actually got there. I tell you, it's all M. Night Shyamalan's fault, making you expect a twist at the end of everything. Now all the surprises are spoiled.
Overall impression: nice game and all, but not one that I could play over and over again. Honestly, if the point of a game is to solve a mystery, what's the point of solving it again? It took me two days to solve it, but I had lots of free time, being sick in bed. Someone working full time, I'd say you could reasonably expect to finish the whole thing by the time the game is due back at Blockbuster.
The Hint:
Imagine that as you walk into the grotto, with the door behind you, the fire pans/star points in front of you are clock points:
-----12-----
-10-------2-
---7----5---
Find the torch, light it with fire from one of the smaller statues, and then light the fire pans in the following order:
12-10-5-10-2-10-7
This will ensure all five points are lit at the same time, providing you with your next clue and your exit.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Not a joke
I was originally going to post this as a response to someone's blog, but I thought it would be better as my own blog entry. It has been slightly edited.
You're just mean, aren't you? Or perhaps you think poking fun at scrawny women will make them eat? Yeah, that's a real self-esteem booster. I'm getting hungry just thinking about it. *eye roll*
Don't get me wrong, I think the skin-and-bones look is unhealthy and unattractive, but anorexics need to treatment that is based on positive reinforcement and good nutrition, not snarky comments from movie critics and gossip mavens who would better serve the world by discussing films and television shows or shutting up entirely.
You think anorexia is an important issue? Treat it that way, not as a passing joke meant to get cheap laughs. People are dying, have already died, from anorexia. Do you have anything funny to say about that?
You're just mean, aren't you? Or perhaps you think poking fun at scrawny women will make them eat? Yeah, that's a real self-esteem booster. I'm getting hungry just thinking about it. *eye roll*
Don't get me wrong, I think the skin-and-bones look is unhealthy and unattractive, but anorexics need to treatment that is based on positive reinforcement and good nutrition, not snarky comments from movie critics and gossip mavens who would better serve the world by discussing films and television shows or shutting up entirely.
You think anorexia is an important issue? Treat it that way, not as a passing joke meant to get cheap laughs. People are dying, have already died, from anorexia. Do you have anything funny to say about that?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
I don't want to see it
Attention: all ladies, young and old, tall and short, thin and chubby, born-a-girl and used-to-be-a-dude.
I'm not about to tell you never, ever to wear short skirts in public. We live in a free country, so I can't do that. Everyone has different ideas about modesty. Fine. But please listen this heartfelt plea:
When you wear a skirt that comes to the knee or above, please do not cross your legs at the knee when seated. Whoever is sitting across from you can see all the way up.
I do not want to see the color of your underwear while resting on a bench at the mall. I do not want to explain to my children why they can see your ladyparts, or (so help me) what they are for. I do not want to have to go over to you and whisper in your ear that I can see your stuff, but I will if you don't uncross those legs already, because there's nowhere else for me to sit but across from you, and there's no way I'm spending my only ten minutes of rest with your womanly glory in my line of vision. And I imagine YOU don't want some pervert guy taking my seat after I get up, pulling out his camera phone, and e-mailing pictures of your womanhood to his skeezy friends.
This goes double for church. In my opinion you have no business wearing a skirt that short to church anyway, but if you do insist on entering the Lord's House dressed like it's time to go clubbin', please have the courtesy to either cross your legs at the ankle or not cross them at all. I certainly do not want to see your panties while I'm sitting in the foyer waiting for my appointment with the bishop, nor do I think that 10-year-old boy's mother would appreciate your inadvertently educating her son on the mysteries of How Lingerie Fits. And I can assure you, the bishop doesn't need to see it, nor do any of the other husbands. That's why they have wives.
So from now on, keep your Victoria's Secrets to yourselves.
I'm not about to tell you never, ever to wear short skirts in public. We live in a free country, so I can't do that. Everyone has different ideas about modesty. Fine. But please listen this heartfelt plea:
When you wear a skirt that comes to the knee or above, please do not cross your legs at the knee when seated. Whoever is sitting across from you can see all the way up.
I do not want to see the color of your underwear while resting on a bench at the mall. I do not want to explain to my children why they can see your ladyparts, or (so help me) what they are for. I do not want to have to go over to you and whisper in your ear that I can see your stuff, but I will if you don't uncross those legs already, because there's nowhere else for me to sit but across from you, and there's no way I'm spending my only ten minutes of rest with your womanly glory in my line of vision. And I imagine YOU don't want some pervert guy taking my seat after I get up, pulling out his camera phone, and e-mailing pictures of your womanhood to his skeezy friends.
This goes double for church. In my opinion you have no business wearing a skirt that short to church anyway, but if you do insist on entering the Lord's House dressed like it's time to go clubbin', please have the courtesy to either cross your legs at the ankle or not cross them at all. I certainly do not want to see your panties while I'm sitting in the foyer waiting for my appointment with the bishop, nor do I think that 10-year-old boy's mother would appreciate your inadvertently educating her son on the mysteries of How Lingerie Fits. And I can assure you, the bishop doesn't need to see it, nor do any of the other husbands. That's why they have wives.
So from now on, keep your Victoria's Secrets to yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
