He's just not that into you... oh wait, I lied.

Last night I watched He's Just Not That Into You.

I read the book back when it came out:

And, before that, saw the Sex and the City episode that spawned the book that later spawned the movie.  To all of this I will say: it should have stopped with the SATC episode. T

he book isn't bad (although it's been a while since I read it so I'd have to re-read it to form a thorough opinion).  There are a lot of women who are, as the film clearly points out, conditioned to believe that men act like assholes to show you that they like you.  Seriously, isn't it insane when it's worded that way?  But many women believe it's true, telling themselves the man isn't ready for a relationship, has intimacy issues, loves them so much that it scares him, blah blah blahdie blah blah.  (Full disclosure: I have said all of those things myself - at one point, all about the same man.  But in my case it was true.  Ha.  No, we didn't get married, but whatever - I know what I know.) For the woman that still use these ideas regularly, the title of the book alone should have had an effect. 

The film, I am sad to report, completely UNDOES THE WHOLE EFFING THING!  Throughout the whole film, one key character is not into the girl - oh wait, UNTIL HE IS.  Married men never leave their wives - oh wait, UNTIL ONE DOES (albeit because his wife wised up and kicked the lying sack of poo out of her home).  The man who says he does not want to get married will never change his mind and propose - oh wait, UNTIL HE DOES.  It was completely infuriating.  And, to boot, the one woman with a spine (who kicks out her cheating husband) is the most annoying character in the whole film.  That is not good. That said, I don't hate that I watched the film.  It was entertaining enough - it's just really the last 10 or so minutes that undo the whole damn thing.  I want to write a letter to Drew Barrymore and tell her that I'm disappointed in her (she's one of the executive producers).  She should really know better.  This could've been a great female empowerment film but instead ended up reinforcing the worst stereotypes and delusions.  Boo hiss.

Star Trek III and IV - great way to spend a Sunday

Yesterday the hubby and I decided to have one of his brothers (and the brother's gf) over for dinner.  The plan for dinner was a nice, semi-lazy slow cooker-based meal (more on that later) and so we had the afternoon to lounge around and just hang out together (a total rarity).  So we popped in Star TrekIII: The Search for Spock.

As stated in my post on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, I enjoyed it so much that I was really looking forward to III - and I was not disappointed.  This movie was really interesting - just as interesting as II, really.  So much so that I actually put down my magazine and my laptop and just snuggled up to my husband and watched the movie. No, seriously, this is a big deal.  1 - I don't snuggle.  2 - I don't watch TV without doing something else at the same time (usually reading on my laptop, sometimes flipping through a magazine).  For this film to get my full attention, it had to be really interesting.  It was so interesting and entertaining that I asked if we could watch the next film after dinner: Star Trek IV: TheVoyage Home.

I was previously told by several sources that this film is the favorite among non-Trekkies and, now having watched it, it's very easy to see why.  It's the least space/science/technology-oriented of the films I've seen so far.  Not to ruin anything if you haven't seen it, but a lot of it takes place in 1980s San Francisco (so, on Earth, not in space) and the plot could be the plot of any non-Trek film.  I enjoyed it a lot, but I felt like they were pandering to the non-Trekkie audience a bit.  The film was funny and entertaining, though, and if it was a bit earlier when we finished it, I would have wanted to just keep on going and pop in Star Trek V.  But we'll save that for another evening.

So, yeah - I think my husband is succeeding in his quest to turn me into a Trekkie.  Man, I would have never thought it possible.  You won't find me building Enterprise models but I really do want to watch more films and the original series.  Gah.

Alien

94. Watch all of the films on AFI’s “10 Top 10“ list. (38/100)

I had some free time today after proctoring an exam at work, preparing a side dish for a barbeque tonight, and actually going to the barbeque (and the hubby was working) so I decided to watch another film I had saved on the Tivo: Alien.

I was a bit worried about watching this since, while it's classified as science fiction, it's also classified as horror.  However, I have to say, I did not really enjoy this movie nor was I scared by it.  It seems to me that a lot of the fear has to do with scenes occurring in the dark and the alien being really ugly - oh, and it pops out at people really unexpectedly.  Ugly + popping out unexpectedly = scary. 

However, this film is really part of pop culture and film lore by now, so I already knew about the alien out of the gut (thank you Spaceballs) and about how ugly the alien is (thank you every "greatest sci-fi films" clip show). I found the first hour of the film to be dreadfully slow and boring (basically up until the "alien pops out of the gut" part).  The design of the computers was really amusing, though.  Did they really think we'd always have black screens with green DOS script?  I guess Bill Gates really was/is a visionary.  And the nearly-naked, nipples showing through the skimpy tank top Sigourney Weaver scene near the end was just annoying.  What's more cliche than a girl or woman in her underwear running away from something scary?  She does kick ass, though, so there's something to be said for that. All in all, I was disappointed in this film and don't see why there was enough interest to make sequels.

Watching movies off the list

I love watching movies.  The hard part is finding the time to devote to a movie, especially if I'm interested in watching it with someone else (or, harder yet, several someone elses).  Today, for example, I was already sucked into an America's Next Top Model marathon when I decided I should turn it off and pop in a DVD instead.  The only reason I was able to make that decision was because I borrowed two movies from school and didn't want to have to return them without having watched them (that irritates me - I'm still annoyed that I borrowed Quantam of Solace and had to return it without watching it).

Well, recently, I've had the pleasurable opportunity to watch four (four!) movies.  Since life is going to get super crazy this fall with the hubby and I both going back to school, plus my job and teaching responsibilities, I plan to get a lot of films in this summer.  (My teaching gig for June got cancelled due to low enrollment, so now I'm looking to enjoy that newfound free time as much as possible - but, of course, without much spending, especially since now I don't have that extra summer salary).

Monsters vs. Aliens

The hubby and I went to see this as part of our May date night (the night we went to the Fiesta Hut).   We had both wanted to see it for a while so I was glad that we were still able to see it in 3D at the theater.  It has really great actors doing the voices (Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogan, Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett, Kiefer Sutherland, Stephen Colbert, Paul Rudd) and the story is really well-written and tight.  It's definitely an enjoyable film for both kids and adults.  I particularly enjoyed the feminist storyline: the main character is engaged to a guy who she realizes only likes her when she's passive/submissive OR when she's famous and can help his career.  Of course, she tells him to bugger off.  It's a great antidote to the old "you're a princess, a man will come save you, and marriage is the best thing you'll ever achieve" fairytales.  The character is still abnormally thin, but I guess you can't have it all in a story.  I'd still recommend it to any parent.  Beyond that, I'd recommend it to any adult, even if they don't have children.

New In Town

I watched this last night as a part of a lovely girls' night with some tasty take-out and a bottle of wine.  I didn't have great literary expectations for the film but figured it could be a cute romantic comedy.  Renee Zellweger can be hit or miss.  Sometimes she does a great job in these films (like Bridget Jones) and other times I find her to be a film's weaker element (Chicago).  I think she did a fair job in this film and Harry Connick Jr. always does a great job as the romantic leading man.  The exaggerated Minnesota accents are amusing and the film did nothing to tamper my love for Minnesota, despite its crazily cold winters.  Overall, I enjoyed this movie.  I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to watch it again, but I don't regret taking the time to watch it last night.

Changeling

This is one of the films I borrowed from the school library.  All I knew about it was the basic storyline - that the leading character's son goes missing and the police bring her a boy they claim is her son but it's clear that he's not.  Teasers like that always grab me because I'm always dying to know what the truth is (it's the whole reason I saw The Lake House despite my distaste for Keanu Reeves).

It might have been that small curiosity that pulled me in, but the movie kept me enthralled because it's amazing.  From the acting to the script to the direction, it is all remarkably amazing.  I would recommend this movie to absolutely anyone.  There's a tiny bit of gore that I wasn't expecting, but it's nothing over the top and it's totally in-line with the film.  The tension in the film is incredible.  Just when you think you can't take anymore, something happens to bring the tension down, only to have it brought up again.

Much of the underlying subject matter is remarkably timely, too.  It's about how women's intuition is undervalued and treated as trivial.  It also exposes the state of mental health care in the 1920s and, specifically, how troublesome women were often just marked as mentally ill and filed away.  The way the main character is treated, both in and out of the mental hospital, is very troubling and I believe that eighty years from now, they'll be making films that show how unjust and ridiculous we still are in regards to equal treatment for women.  Quite possibly, a film about the reaction to Sotomayor's Supreme Court appointment will be looked at as we now look at how women were treated in the 1920s.

Current connections aside, it's a really wonderful and enjoyable movie.  If you haven't seen it, definitely watch it!

The Wrestler

This movie received a ton of rave reviews but really leapt into public discourse when Mickey Rourke won the Golden Globe award for the leading role in the film.  He didn't win the Oscar (Sean Penn did for Milk - another film I plan to borrow soon) but his acting in The Wrestler is phenomenal.  The story is moving, heart-wrenching and heart-wrenching.  I, in no way, am or have ever been a fan of wrestling.  However, this actually made me understand the whole world of it (I say it's soap operas for men; the hubby says he's been saying that for years).

The ending of the movie is a bit curious.  I can't figure out if I'm supposed to know what happens or if they decided to leave it up to the viewer.  It's a bit Sopranos-esque that way (although I believe the Sopranos ending was pretty clear).  I just finished The Wrestler a few minutes ago so I have to let it all sink in a bit.  I think a theory about the film will begin to form as my brain applies my usual literary exegesis skills to it.

But this much I know: I would DEFINITELY recommend this film to anyone who enjoys serious films.  If you only like SuperTroopers types of films, you won't like this.  However, if you have a fairly balanced appreciation of films and enjoy a great, serious, moving story - this is a great film for you.  Highly, highly recommended.

I feel lucky to have seen so many great films recently.  I'm even happier that great films are still being made.  I hate how it seems that 90% of the film previews and commercials I see look terrible, but I suppose you only really need 10% to keep satisfied enough (if you know enough to avoid the rest).  However, considering I'm 4/4 this month - all recent films - then perhaps there is even more than 10% out there.

To summarize: I highly, highly recommend Changeling and The Wrestler for anyone who enjoys a terrific serious film.  Monsters vs. Aliens is great for both adults and kids and has a great feminist message. New In Town is fair if you're looking for a chick flick.

I can't wait to watch more films in June!

Scarface (1983)

94. Watch all of the films on AFI’s “10 Top 10“ list. (37/100)

Since I had some spare time Friday night, I decided to watch a movie I had on my Tivo for months.  I borrowed a few movies from the library for the weekend, but I didn't want to watch any of them in case someone wanted to watch them with me later.  So Scarface on Tivo it was.

I was nervous about this because I can't watch scary movies by myself, and by that I don't just mean horror movies - I mean thrillers, gangster movies with bloodshed, and so on.  I knew enough about Scarface to know that it was going to include a lot of shooting and killing and blood - things I'm not so good with at all, much less on my own.  Then I noticed that on top of all that, it's three hours long??  I love long movies but the idea of three hours of bloodshed had me really worried. 

And, as expected, I spent the whole movie totally nervous about what would happen next - on the proverbial edge of my seat. I really loved the movie's opening; it promises a great story - and it delivers on that.  Tony's descent into paranoia is the real story with the crime, violence, and drugs as the backdrop.  Al Pacino completely inhabits the role.  His acting is so superb that you forget he's Al Pacino.  He actually is Tony Montana. 

The whole storyline about his sister is a bit weird.  I didn't understand why he was so extremely protective of her; it was entirely pathological and I was convinced that they had an incestuous relationship - and from his sister's last scene, perhaps I had the right vibe all along, I don't really know for sure. 

Aside from that, though, I have no plot complaints. Pacino really carries the film but all of the acting throughout the film is amazing.  The music is totally 80s and now that I've been to Miami, I can say that the exterior shots are so Miami and, specifically, what I imagine early 80s Miami to have been like.  It's not so over the top or time-capsule-like, though, that it's distracting.  It's actually quite amazing how the time and place are always clear and key to the story, but not distracting. Overall, I greatly enjoyed the film but it's not one I would watch repeatedly because I really can't stomach all the bloodshed.  Art-wise, though, it's a great film and totally deserving of being on AFI's list - or any list of great films, for that matter. The 1932 version of this film is also on AFI's list.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the story was originally told.

Flame... Flames... on the sides of my face...

Any Clue fans?  Full disclosure: I can quote the whole movie... in Cantonese.  Okay, kidding... about the Cantonese, that is.  If we watch the movie together, I will try not to quote the whole thing as it plays, I promise.

As I sit here watching and reading lots of news clips, I can only wonder why it is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON I see criticizing Sonia Sotomayor is a white man? I can't even bring myself to calm down enough to adequately address the language being used in reference to her.  It is so extremely gender and race biased that it makes me sick. 

G. Gordon Liddy saying that he hopes she doesn't have to make decisions when she's menstruating and referring to the language of Spanish as speaking "illegal alien"???  What about Glen Beck calling her "Hispanic chick lady"?  Several intimating that she only got in to Princeton because of affirmative action.  (Oh, yes, and George W. Bush got into Yale based on his stellar academics.  She won the top prize when she graduated.  What did Bushie win?  Nada - we all lost.) 

And so what that all of the judges on Obama's short list were women?  Guess what - the bench needs one.  I'm sorry old white men, but your time is up.  Time to learn how to share. In reference to the recent Prop 8 decision, my brother said that decades from now scholars are going to look back on this time period - our time period - and view it the same way that we view segregation and the ban on interracial marriages.  I'm hopeful that his guess of "decades from now" is correct because I really fear that it's going to take longer than that.  Better yet, though, I hope it happens even sooner than that.  I'm not sure how long I can bear to live in a state of constant frustration at the intolerance of my fellow citizens.

5 thoughts (plus) on Jesus Camp

Last night I went home with the full intention of sitting on the sofa and reading some of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, but then I remembered that I Tivo'd the film Jesus Camp a couple of days ago.  The hubby wasn't going to be home until after 9pm, so this was a perfect time to settle in and watch it.  So I do not prattle on and on about this film, I am forcing myself to make five (5) succinct(ish) points.  (And then will probably prattle on following my main points.)

First, a brief synopsis of the documentary if you are not already familiar with it (source: IMDB):  Jesus Camp follows several young children as they prepare to attend a summer camp where the kids will get their daily dose of evangelical Christianity. Through interviews with camp staff, the children, and others, Jesus Camp illustrates the unswerving belief of the faithful.

1) The film runs less than an hour and a half but it felt like it was four hours along.  I was amazed that it was still light outside when I was done watching it.  This is due to the very honest and neutral way that the filmmakers present their subjects.  If you do not subscribe to this belief system, it is quite awkward to watch for an extended period of time and I can understand why several reviewers said they had to try hard not to walk out of the theater while watching it.

2) I made the conscious decision to not automatically judge the film's subjects.  I do believe "to each their own" even though I have seriously strong objections to a lot of what is said and occurs during the film.  I am related to some people who consider themselves born-again Christians and my grandmother is a Jehovah's Witness, so I am used to hearing views that do not match my own.  However, I am grateful that no one in my life is as involved in this sort of church life as the documentary participants.

3) My forced patience with the film did lead me to some increased understanding.  As someone who is strongly, vehemently pro-choice, I have a very difficult time understanding part of the pro-life argument.  I understand the part about thinking abortion is wrong (see: to each their own).  However, the part I have never understood is why some people think it's their business to stop anyone else's abortion.  In this film, the participants talk about how God has a plan for each person from the moment of conception.  That, for me, was like a big "Oh, duh!" moment.  If you think about God as having a plan for each and every life from the moment of conception, well then clearly you are going to be even more vehemently pro-life than I am pro-choice.  In no way do I agree with the "there's a plan for everyone from the moment of conception" idea, but it has really helped me understand where the pro-life folks are coming from.

4) That said, that was the only useful piece of understanding I gained from the film.  Beyond that, I still just do not comprehend much of this lifestyle and belief system.  I don't understand why they see themselves as warriers in a worldwide holy war.  I believe that religion and faith is personal and that if you wish to congregate with others who share your beliefs, that's wonderful.  However, I do NOT agree that you should take it upon yourself as a god-given mission to convert those that do not believe as you do, especially if they have been exposed to Christianity their whole lives, as most Americans have.  I recognize that wanting people to agree with me on this could be construed as trying to convert their thinking to mine, but is wanting everyone's faith to be respected really a radical point of view?  (See: to each their own.) Note: I do not believe that just because I don't understand the lifestyle and beliefs that they shouldn't exist; I'm just stating that I do not comprehend it all.  (Again, see: to each their own.)

5) To end, the film left me really troubled, almost in a way that is still too complicated for me to parse, even the next day.  While the scenes about abortion did lead to some new understanding, I find it quite troubling that they are discussing this with children.  I do not believe children need to know what abortion is and that there's even a battle over it.  That is not a part of childhood.  Then to have them whipped up into a frenzy, screaming "Righteous judges!  Righteous judges!" in the prayer that God will lead then-president George W. Bush to appointing judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade - I find that incredibly inappropriate.  I don't even want adults praying for that, much less children.  The utter denial of the separation of church and state among the subjects was, at best, disheartening and, at worst, terrifying. I believe that conservative politicians saw this group as a potential voting bloc if they hooked them correctly and have worked to do so without fully considering the long-term ramifications. The level to which church and state now mix, or a group of people want it to mix, is extremely troubling.  We should no longer even be discussing the idea of creationism in a public school and yet it comes up over and over again. If you want your children to learn creationism, send them to Sunday School and/or parochial school.

I do not believe there should be prayer in school.  If you want to pray in school, you can easily find the time.  (Who didn't mutter a few, "Oh please, God, please" right before some tests in high school?) I do not believe your Bible belongs in my bedroom or my doctor's office. I believe marriage is a religious institution for you and you only if you so desire. This is the house of to each their own.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

69. Watch 5 movies that my husband loves that I am not interested in. (1/5)

This item on my 101 list came about because my husband and I have very different tastes in movies.  Sometimes our tastes intersect, but quite often they don't and he is really good about seeing some movies I'm interested in (Harry Potter, Twilight, various chick flicks) and I don't subject him to too many depressing or French films (I love watching those on my own anyway).  However, I am really not very tolerant of watching movies I am not interested in.  If I'm not interested in it at all, I have a hard time finding absolutely anything in the movie to hold my attention.  When he made me watch SuperTroopers and Grandma's Boy, I nearly wanted to gauge my eyes out and stuff them in my ears.  I still feel like those are hours of my life that I will never get back and am worse off for losing.  So, as you can see, there was some work to do here.  He is far more tolerant and patient than me so one thing I want to work at is meeting him halfway on things like that.  I love that he agreed to see Twilight with me when we were on our honeymoon and even was kind of interested in it.  How can I not watch more of what he likes?

Sooooo... last night we stayed in and watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).  Now, we watched the original (1979) Star Trek film a little while back and that was rough.  I was barely able to keep my eyes open for it because I was that bored (and I actually enjoy watching the original TV series), so I was a bit worried about this one but the hubby kept swearing this one was more interesting.  And, surprisingly, he was right!  I actually really enjoyed the movie!  It's sooooo early 80s; it's really the 80s vision of the future - but the plot was interesting and I actually paid attention to quite a lot of the movie (I know, I know - I'm working on paying attention to the whole thing).  Toward the end I started to nod off, but that's because it was past my bedtime (and the two bottles of Guinness probably didn't help).  But, yeah, I enjoyed it - so much so that I will not add Star Trek III to this list when we watch it because I am looking forward to it.  Will wonders never cease.  What can't some patience and a little Guinness manage?

Can we stop making Anne Hathaway say she's fat?

This past weekend I watched Rachel Getting Married, the movie that Anne Hathaway was nominated for an Oscar for.  The hubby was working and I was enjoying a rare night at home alone with nothing to do so I borrowed this from the school library (free!) and settled in for the evening. 

(Side note: I'm so used to having a hundred things to do that I actually couldn't sit and watch the movie straight through.  I got up, cleaned the bathtub, baked cookies, cleaned the kitchen, and a few other small things, all while going back and watching a few moments of the movie, then pausing it to do something else.  I really need to learn how to just SIT and do one thing at a time, but that's not the main point today.)

In the film, Hathaway's character is fresh out of rehab and makes a point of saying several times how she's fat because rehab makes you fat.  Considering she's probably a size 6 (4?), this was annoying and aggravating.  Similarly, in The Devil Wears Prada, she is made fun of for being the "fat, ugly" girl because she's a size 6 (not 0/2) and doesn't wear designer labels daily.  Yes, this is a commentary on that particular realm and how a size 6 is nightmarishly fat for fashionistas like that, but it's still disconcerting and aggravating. 

Later in the film, she beams with pride as she informs Stanley Tucci's character that she's now a size 4.  In Bride Wars, Kate Hudson (!!) is the fat (!!) one.  *sigh* For the filming of The Devil Wears Prada, Hathaway said, "I was thin for my height. I basically stuck with fruit, vegetables and fish. I wouldn’t recommend that. Emily Blunt and I would clutch at each other and cry because we were so hungry."  That's pathetic - utterly sad and pathetic.  But she's also said, "I've had directors say to me, 'You're the best actress for the role, but you've put on weight recently.' If people can't understand you've put on five pounds, I don't want to deal with them." 

I hope she expands this idea to no longer taking rolls that force her to say she's fat, even if the film is trying to make a point (because I don't think either Rachel or Prada accurately make the point that she's NOT fat). Can we please recognize that actresses who are thinner than one of my thighs are NOT fat?  Can we please write films for them that don't ask them to state that they are?  Can we please write films that don't explain fat as a state that comes about from eating too much chocolate or going off of drugs?  Can it not be an automatic personal failure?

By the way, as I type this and have Hathaway's IMDB page open, there is a Slim Fast ad running down it's side proclaiming that you, too, can kick your cupcake habit if you join the Slim Fast plan.  Oh, yes, of course - why didn't I think of that?  A small shake in a can would be SO much more fulfilling than a hearty salad or bowl of soup or light sandwich for lunch.  That must be why I'm fat.  Or maybe it's the drugs I quit taking or all the chocolate I eat. I don't mind commentary about what is/is not fat in films.  In fact, I welcome it.  However, what I object to is clearly thin actresses having to play the fat role because they're a size 6 instead of a 2.  I know we're not used to looking at normal sized women on screen, but how about we use a size 10 as the normal woman, even though size 14 is the norm?  Or wait, I know - how about we properly represent the full range of sizes and shapes women come in?  If I lined up all the women I see regularly, you would see a full range of heights, weights, and fitness.  You'd see thin and out of shape and you'd see plus-sized and in shape.  You'd see tall, short, thin, heavy, average, pudgy, slouchy, insecure, bold, casual, dressy, stylish, and style-challenged women.  And I hate when people say things like this and then close with, "But they're all beautiful" - but guess what?  They are.  They are beautiful on the inside AND the outside.  They are all loved and treasured by the people who know them.  They do wonderful things for people.  They work hard at their jobs.  They raise precious, loving children.  They are fierce competitors.  They're nerds and geeks, shopaholics and spendthrifts, great cooks and kitchen disasters.  What they are not are women who need to be continually told that a size 6 is fat.  They ARE beautiful, so there.

I missed Things I Miss Friday

But this morning brought me smack dab in the face of something I always miss: Doing Time on Maple Drive - probably the best made-for-TV/Lifetime-ish movie EVER made.

Yes, that's Jim Carrey.  He plays an alcoholic.  The father is a former military guy who's been too strict on his family, so all the kids are screwed up.  The mother, well, I don't know her reason for being a jerk, but she is.

I have always love this movie, but it's funny how dated it looks and sounds now.  It came out in 1993 so everyone's waistbands are a bit high.  The mother's homophobia would not be written the same way now, even on Lifetime.  "I don't know why you choose this for yourself!"  "I didn't choose this, Mom, this is who I am!  And what about AIDS?  Would someone choose to be gay now?"  The line actually took me aback; I don't think being gay and AIDS are associated like that anymore, so easily.

Later the father says, "Homosexual.  There, I said it... and I didn't even feel sick or anything." "Well, Dad, I think the word 'gay' is easier."  "No, I don't like that word.  It's a perfectly good word that's been ruined."   Errr, yeah.  So very dated; it reminds me of those old B&W "marijuana is bad for you" films from the 30s.  My best guess, though, is that this was someone's first attempt to broach this topic.  1992 was the start of the Clinton era; we got through the Reagan administration with him not saying the word AIDS until nearly the end of his term and G.H.W. Bush not doing much better.  One of my very favorite 90s films, And The Band Played On, came out the following year, also on television.  I think maybe not only did filmmakers start to feel freer to make such films, but also people felt ready to explore the ideas and topics in a more public forum.

For all its dated-ness, though, I still love Doing Time on Maple Drive.  It's one of those that I kind of wish I don't ever get on DVD because it's like a special treat every time I happen to find it on TV, as odd as that probably sounds.

The long and tart of it

Well, the tart turned out to be edible, yay!  I would change a few things for next time, though.  I think I need a higher quality lemon and to grind the sugar longer so the tart filling is less granular and smoother instead.  It wasn't the sort of thing you make where after one bite you're like, "MMmmm, oh this is GOOD!" (which is my favorite reaction).  It was good, maybe fair, but definitely not great - needs some work.  My dad and hubby ate up their slices, though, so at least it was good enough to eat.

I found the Oscars to be really enjoyable, but then I even enjoy the so-called "boring" ones.  I don't understand the reviews today saying that the show was even worse than ever.  I don't know what people expect; it's an awards show - it's a bunch of grossly overpaid people congratulating each other on one of the cushiest jobs one can have in our country.  How exciting is that going to be?  (But, ooh, I love the fashion and all the gossip-y-ness of the whole thing.)

My second job begins today.  I teach at a community college and their semester starts late, i.e. today.  I'm always nervous on the first day of any semester, but the first day is so easy - introductions, syllabus review, blah blah blah.  It's the first "real" lesson that's always the scariest... the first day where you ask your best, well-prepared discussion question... and all you hear is silence.  That's the scary moment yet to come.

I love teaching evening students, though - I find them to be so uniquely motivated and driven (not all, of course, but more so than the majority of traditional age, day students I know).  I'm excited to meet the new group I'll be spending four hours a week with until May.

94. Watch all of the films on AFI’s “10 Top 10“ list. (36/100) - The Public Enemy

The Public Enemy

This is a 1931 film starring James Cagney and Jean Harlow (although she's really not in it a lot).  I'm not too sure what to say about this film as I found it difficult to watch because I wasn't drawn into the story.  It's about gangs during Prohibition, which obviously can be interesting, but this movie really isn't.  I'd much rather read a book about gangs during Prohibition than ever see this film again.

I have another film from the "Gangster" list on my Tivo - Little Caesar - but it's from 1930 and I don't think I could take another of these films tonight.

94. Watch all of the films on AFI’s “10 Top 10“ list. (35/100) - Hoosiers

Hoosiers

I don't have anything against sports movies.  They might not be my personal genre of choice, but I can appreciate what they represent and the space they fill in the world of film making.  Hoosiers, however, did not impress me.  It was enjoyable enough - meaning I wasn't miserable watching it; however, I kept waiting for something more.  There are no twists.  Where you ordinarily expect a significant bad turn for the lead characters, there are none.  Sure, there's a drunk dad and some stitches (unrelated) and an almost-firing... but these all last for just a couple of minutes and don't get significant attention.

It makes me wonder if this film really undervalues the ability of men to grasp deeper themes.  The movie is seemingly a pile of male cliches - anger management, teamwork over individual achievement, man fights town who doesn't believe in him while also winning over woman who didn't initially like him, drunk dad dries out, boys learn to become men while also learning there's a world out there bigger than their farming town.  It's really cliche after cliche.  I really wonder if this film would get green-lighted today because it is so simple and predictable.  Maybe I feel like this about it because it did so well and I've seen so many similar films that followed it?  I don't know.

So, overall, it wasn't a waste of my time and I can see why someone who isn't into deep thought would like it, but I'm hoping the rest of the sports films on the list offer up something a bit more complicated.

Things that make me sad

1. One of my favorite podcasts, Make-It-Green Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for an Earth Friendly Life, has ended.  Boo.  Have I mentioned that I'm a podcast junkie?  I am.  In particular, I love many of the offerings that the Quick and Dirty Tips folks offer up and I thought Make-It-Green Girl was a great addition.  Damn.  At least This American Life is still going.  If they end... there'll be tears.  Many tears.  I think I could safely say it'd be a loss to the nation.

2. The GameStop at the mall I went to on my lunch hour has WiiFits in stock!!!  AUGH!!!  I have no money, though.  Well, I mean, I have some but I really need to set it aside for the bills due later this month.  I texted my husband to let him know it's in stock.

Me: The GameStop at the mall has WiiFits in stock!  They just got them today!  Gah!

Answer I was hoping for: You better buy one!  Great find, honey!!

Answer I got: I'm sorry.

:(  No Wii Fit for me today.  I told my husband yesterday I didn't want to spend $5 on movie popcorn b/c the bills are so high this month and now I want to spend $90 on a video game?  Yeah.

3. The hubby, two friends, and I went to see The Spirit last night.  It wasn't great.  In fact, the first hour was torturously bad.  The second hour (well, a little less b/c it's not two hours long) was better.  The writing is my chief complaint.  I understand they were trying to achieve graphic novel dialogue but it didn't translate well to film.  The acting was terrible in parts, too.  Scarlet Johannson was a treat, though - probably the best part of the movie.  The experience makes me sad because I could have lived without seeing the film and done something else, but it really isn't too sad since we saw the movie for free (had a discount card) and it was less than two hours long.  I guess this one should be tagged "things that would make me sad if I paid for them."

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

When I was a teenager, I really hated black and white movies.  I had a hard time watching something that wasn't in color because I would spend so much time wondering what the film would look like if it were in color.  (Juvenile and weird, I know, but I was a teenager - that's my excuse.)  Now, clearly a more mature and rarefied individual, I have a great appreciation for black and white movies.  Sometimes, though, the pacing of pre-70s films takes a little bit of adjustment.  Films made in my lifetime move so much more quickly and I really do think we have lost something significant in the quick camera movements and storyline pacing of contemporary movies.  I really do wish so many movies would just slow down and ask a little more of the audience.  I get frustrated when I want to watch a movie with friends and it turns out to be one of those  films with "a lot of talking" and I watch my friends get bored and start their own conversations.  I've always said that I probably would not want to be friends with myself, but I do wish I had a friend with the exact same movie tastes as myself.

I'm excited to be working on seeing all of AFI's Top 100 films, even though half of them aren't my usual taste.  This afternoon I watched Invasion of the Body Snatchers and was thoroughly impressed with the acting and pacing.  Because acting and filmmaking styles have changed, older films so easily appear dated and foreign to a contemporary eye.  This film holds up greatly to the test of time, though, and I really enjoyed watching it.

Tonight I knock another item off the list: my husband and I are going to a Devils' game!