Entertainment Category Archives
|
|
Slumdog Millionaire is ostensibly about a guy from the slums of India who manages to make his way onto the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." You'd think he might be exceptional for his education or knowledge of random trivia, but no. The story is more richly layered. It turns out that the answer to every single question he's asked refers him back to some painful past memory. It's in this way, through a series of flashbacks, that you learn that he is not exceptional for his brain, but his heart.
The story is really about Jamal, his older brother Salim, and their third "Musketeer", a girl named Latika. Using the answers to the game show questions, it threads the story of how they meet and the paths their lives take, which is not glamorous. Ultimately, you see that Jamal loves Latika, and he will do anything to be with her. In the end, this drives him to try to be on "Millionaire" because he knows she watches the show and he can't reach her any other way.
I wouldn't call it a "feel good" movie (even including the necessary Bollywood dance number as the credits roll), but it does show the strength of the human spirit, and the power of love in the best and worst of situations. I give it an "A".
I'm a HUGE fan of Daniel Day-Lewis. I recently said I would pay to watch him do sock puppet theatre. He's a genius. And he shows you why in There Will be Blood. This bio-pic is inspired by Upton Sinclair's novel, Oil!, which is loosely based on the life of Edward Doheny, an oilman in the early 20th century involved in the Teapot Dome scandal.
Like 3:10 to Yuma, this is a character piece, rather than any kind of action adventure. This is a long movie, and in retrospect, there are no wasted words, gestures, expressions, etc. Everything about this film is deliberate. There is no ultimate triumph, no redemption. It is simply a study of a man's life--there's humor, wit, things done well and huge mistakes. Daniel Plainview is a driven, flawed man who matches wits with a small-town preacher, Eli, his nemesis.
While there were many slow moments in the movie, missing any of these moments can put you behind the 8-ball with the plot later. It's a movie you'll think about for days after, and it's worth the price of admission for two things. Day-Lewis's performance, and the explanation of "milkshake" at the finale. To that end, enjoy this spoof, provided by my date for the movie:
I admit that the trailers didn't really pique my interest. The visual of a platinum Julia Roberts slinking out of a pool doesn't give the first clue as to what this movie is all about. Which is a shame, but I understand they didn't think people would go if they knew it was about...Afghanistan.
Charlie Wilson's War tells the story of a Congressman from Texas who takes his tarnished reputation as a Capitol Hill philanderer and remakes himself into a hero of democracy by fighting to obtain the funding necessary for the Afghan rebels to hold off the invading Russians during the 1980's.
What you get: strong performances. Tom Hanks is convincing in portraying the irony between his selfish and wayward behaviors and his noble intentions toward the rebels, and old friends. Julia Roberts portrays a woman of means who sees what the government does not--that the Russians aren't after Afghanistan. They're after the Perisan Gulf (think Von Schlieffen Plan).
What you don't get: the whole story. It can't be that simple to appropriate millions of dollars from Congress--I'm certain that parts of the story were simplified so that viewers wouldn't get bogged down in the political process. Being me, I wouldn't have minded that part of the story, but I can see how it wouldn't sell tickets.
Bottom line: if you want to know the mindset and practice of the United States in other areas of the world--ie, how we blew it and continue to blow it, see this movie. Charlie is indeed a hero, but the government that backed him deserts him before the end game. Abandoning the Afghans once the Russians roll out is a terrible mistake that, historically, has been repeated by the US in many areas of the world for more than a century. It's doubly sad when you consider how different our situation in that neck of the woods could be had we just finished what we started. And then consider what we should do in Iraq.
Much ado about this flick...but I mostly wanted to see it for the bears. I did read up on the controversy surrounding the movie (and also the books), so I would have a better idea what I was getting into. I have not read the books--although now I kind of want to. This is billed as a sort of mythic journey, good vs. evil. Mission accomplished.
What you get: a clear (but possibly watered down) explanation of what was going on. You can understand what Lyra's mission is, and in a basic form, what Dust, Daemon, and the Magisteryium are. You understand the danger. You get excellent animation. The bears are totally worth it! You also get a surprising heroine (as opposed to all those heroes in LOTR, HP, et al) with real smarts and strength--you empathize with her and she draws you into the story.
What you don't get. Gay angels, for starters. Don't know what that was all about, but not a-one in the film. A heaping serving of atheism--if I don't miss my mark, this is going to be a debate about free will. It was easy for me to see the film was criticizing established religion, and perhaps the Catholic church specifically. And the atmosphere of the film is slightly Nazi Germany, shown in uniforms, and the scientific experiments.
Can you take your kid? Yep. They won't 'catch' atheism from this movie. They will see a character their own age gain courage and strength as she battles to save her friend and understand her own place in the world. I give it a B+. I'd see it again just for the bears...and the voice of Sam Elliott.
For a hilarious review from the Bob & Sheri Radio Show, click HERE
http://view.break.com/315989 - Watch more free videos
It's a shame the studios did not know how to market this movie correctly. The trailers portray 3:10 to Yuma as a new take on the classic western, as an action film. But it's not. It's a story that can be told against any backdrop. And while there are stretches of action, don't expect to sit on the edge of your seat and gnaw your fingernails. The catalyst of this film is not the plot...it's the characters.
Russell Crowe plays outlaw Ben Wade, who heads up a vicious gang responsible for innumerable killings, and 22 robberies that have garnered the crew over 400 thousand k. His counterpart is failing rancher Dan Evans, played by Christian Bale, who is under pressure to sell his land for the railroad, and is trying desperately to hang on through a drought. He needs money, so when men are needed to help get Wade on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison, he goes along for the cash--and for the opportunity to show his sons he's not a coward.
The interesting part about this film is the juxtaposition of these two characters. How are they different, how are they similar? Wade is charming while Evans has a hard time with relationships. They're both under tremendous pressure, and how they respond to the pressure, and to each other is a great study. It came to me that it's not about bringing a killer to justice (what is justice, after all?), but it's about the ability to change, and perhaps have the chance to be the person you've always wanted to be. If you're a plotter who has a hard time with characterization or character-driven plots, give this a shot. You won't be disappointed.
Not having invested in HBO, I recently purchased season two of the HBO series Rome. The series integrates historical figures with fictional characters to weave a version of history that both educates and entertains. Season one plays out under the arc of the story of Julius Caesar, starting with his rise, and ending with his assassination. One of the special features on the DVD is a set of educational subtitles that help explain some of the action, custom, sayings, etc. along the way.
Season two is about the complicated maneuvering of Octavian, Caesar's young nephew who is named as his son and heir. Not only does he have to work around his conniving mother, who is Mark Antony's lover, but also around Antony and Brutus, who are both interested in power for very different reasons. He plays the unexpected underdog, and uses his brains, rather than brawn or honorable politics. On the less powerful side of the coin, the friendship of fictional Verenas and Pullo is again at the center of this power struggle, and beautifully done.
As well as the series is played out--it's more carnal and brutal than the first season--it's only ten episodes long, too short for me. I understand that there are no plans for season three (wahhhh!) but there is a petition circulating to bring it back. The Cinecitta film studio, a historical stage where Rome is filmed, also recently experienced a fire that destroyed a portion of the set. The latest rumor is that another market might pick up production, so this fan can only hope.
Has anyone read these books? Because I'm feeling the need!
I'm not a Matt Damon fan. Yes, he's better than Affleck any day, but the Bourne movies are really the only ones I've really loved him in. The third installment does not disappoint. Action from the get-go, a twisty plot with surprises along the way, and an opening at the end for yet another sequel.
What you get: all out action. The fight and chase scenes are spectacular. So much so that I'd go back just to see them. An interesting plot. There are some surprises with regard to who's working for whom, and why. All the questions are not answered, which leaves room for another movie. I'm interested in how they make him both a cold-blodded killer and a very sympathetic character.
What you don't get: well, all the questions answered. You get enough to feel satisfied with the ending, but happy that there's wiggle room and the possibility to see Bourne fight another day. I give it an A-.
And to that mother who brought her 8 year old son to such a violent flick? SHAME ON YOU!!!
I'd been waiting all week to see this...and believe me, I could have used a distraction! I avoided any reviews from 'official' sources and friends so I could go in with an open mind. I haven't read the book in a couple years, so my memories of all the details are not so sharp--which I've found is the best way to see these movies. HP movies will never do justice to the books. They can't. If they keep to the overall plotline, tone and spirit of the book, I'm good.
I'd consider this the weakest of the movies, but I did enjoy it. I felt that things weren't fully explained (like what the Order of the Phoenix actually is) that would have helped the plot. Having said that, this was probably the easiest of all the plots to understand--so maybe they oversimplified it too much?
What you get--the same great characters, both primary and secondary. The Delores Umbridge character was perfectly played, as are the other character actors. You get the same kinds of special effects you're used to, but the last 30 minutes of the movie are especially packed with the spectaular stuff. I understand from my animation-addled friends that the last 30 are also done in 3-D. Some I-Max theatres will be playing it that way, so check it out!
I give it an A-.
I'm a little too old to remember the TV show or the animated movie, so the reason that all men from 25-31 were foaming at the mouth to see this flick was too far beyond me to even comprehend. But, since my new movie buddy is a former employee of AMC cinemas and has these free passes...I threw in!
Even without a frame of reference, I LOVED IT! What you get: A-C-T-I-O-N! And surprising humor. They pull off a really nice mix of serious and funny. Shia LeBeuf (that has to be his real name, because who would make it up?) does a great job in the lead. With the action comes all of the digital animation. These google-eyed males informed me that some of the working models had well over ten thousand moving parts. Thirty to forty hours could be spent on a single frame of animation. So basically, the movie had to go (pardon me) balls to the wall so it could recoup all the cash spent making it, and it does.
What you don't get: a fresh, unpredictable plot with all the loose ends tied up. It's canned, staged, even a little campy with the teenage romance, but hey--it was really fun to watch! I give it a B.
PS - there was a discernable lack of blood, gore, and cursewords. Only the 'bad robots' killed humans, and then you just saw the body. I was really struck by the tame language, so if you have kids, it's a pretty safe bet.
So, I was looking for something interesting to watch, and my friend Charles handed me this mangled, chewed-up DVD case. "Trust me," he says. OK, the case had been a chew toy for Dudley-Do-Wrong, his over-zealous Boxer pup, but the DVD was intact. AND my DVD player cooperated. How lucky am I?
Pan's Labrynth was one of four Spanish language films nominated for Academy Awards this past year. Subtitles, so be warned. But it matters very little. Pan's Labrynth is an enchanting fantasy set against the cruel backdrop of the Spanish Civil War. Centered on a child named Ofelia, whose mind swirls with fairy tales, she uses the power of imagination to overcome the real demons in her life. Without giving away the plot, you'll get a wonderful cast of characters, and two plots for the price of one--one real, one fantasy, and it's not until the end that you realize exactly how the two converge. It's very cleverly done. You'll also get a fantastic visual treat, as the stark realities of Franco's revolution are contrasted against the highly stylized fantasy world that Ofelia dreams up.
This movie, while in part a 'fairy tale,' is not for children. There are moments of extreme violence and cruelty. Because it's not an American film for an American audience, the pace might not grab you right off the bat, but it's worth the investment to witness the power of one girl's imagination.
All my favorite shows are now on hiatus. Prison Break. Lost. Nip/Tuck. Dirt. What's a girl to watch? I could always watch some favorite movies, or go back and watch seasons of PB, Lost, or Buffy...
I'm waiting for 300 to come out on DVD, and I ordered season one of the HBO series Rome. For research (hee hee). I guess I thought vintage wasn't obscure enough, so I've started a story set in ancient Rome. Why is it when you have other things you *need* to write, a new idea always steals your energy?
Is there anything new, entertainment-wise, that's captured your attention?
I have had a notoriously difficult time following the plots of these movies. I'm not sure why. Maybe they move too fast, or I move too slow. Loved I, II wasn't up to par, but it was all action-ey and stuff, which made it entertaining. Depp and Bloom are hot, so what's to complain about?
III is better than II, though still not upto the bar set by I. What you get: another twisty plot full of betrayal by all parties involved. It's difficult to know who's in league with who, and it's just as well because there's no honor among thieves. You get a resolution in the love story between Elizabeth and Will, even though there's a catch. You have the return of Captain Jack Sparrow--and you get to meet his dad, played by none other than Keith Richards (genius to do this). You get lots of action and in the end, you get a grown-up Will Turner, who is somehow yummier than before...er, that'd be a spoiler. Plus, if you're into soundtracks, Hans Zimmer delivers another masterpiece.
What you don't get: enough Captain Jack. A clearly plotted path. A non-cheesy shipboard wedding which totally reminded everyone in the audience that this is a DISNEY movie. And if you don't stay through the credits, you don't get to see that added bonus scene!
If you liked either of the first two, you'll like this one. I give it a B.
Let me preface this post by saying that I went into the theatre with a small headache. By the time I came out, it had turned into a killer. So, this movie review brought to you by the makers of Darvocet.
If you're a fan of the first two Spiderman movies, this is more of the same. Beyond the usual good vs. evil, there's additional internal conflict for Peter Parker. He becomes full of himself, and this condition is amplified as he becomes a 'host' for a mysterious black substance that emerges from a meteorite. The substance engulfs him (a symbol for rage and revenge) and gives him the new spidey suit. The black-suited Spiderman is the dark side of Peter, and shows what could be if he continues down his current path. He alienates his employer, his competitor, his friends, and his girlfriend--but there's wicked funny humor involved here, too. His relationship with both Harry and MJ is rocky, and the resolution bittersweet. The new villain, Sandman, has his own story to tell, which makes him something of an anti-villain. No one gets out unscathed in the end. While there was no obvious set-up for a fourth movie, that door was not closed.
I'm not the biggest Spidey fan on the block, but it was worth seeing (and having all the swinging around make me ill) on the big screen. A-.
Pathfinder is a movie also based on a graphic novel of the same name produced by Dark Horse comics. As with 300, expect fiction. Here's the blurb:
"Five hundred years before Columbus, barbaric Viking invasions ravaged North America. Something stopped them. Pathfinder is the story of a young Viking boy left behind as the only survivor of a shipwrecked expedition. A stranger in a strange land, the boy is raised by a tribe of American Indians--the very people the Vikings had sworn to destroy. When Vikings again storm the eastern shores, waging another barbaric campaign, they slaughter the tribe that adopted the young man. Now he wages a violent personal war to stop the Viking's trail of death and destruction."
What I liked? The action, costuming, and set design are spectacular. Vikings fought in close combat, so the action is shot that way. It's bloody, but not as much as 300. I liked the plot, although a tad predictable, it did keep you focused. The movie is 1:28, so things get moving and the pace doesn't slow. And finally, I loved the heroine, Starfire, played by Moon Bloodgood. She wasn't the simpering, helpless squaw--she was quite the kick-ass babe.
What I didn't like? This is petty, but (for me) Karl Urban as the hero, Ghost, is simply not hot enough. He acts well, but I didn't toally get into his character. He runs through the movie usually half-dressed in the middle of winter, and I spent some energy wondering why he never got cold. I also thought they left some things out that could have added to the plot--like the initial attack on the village. The child (Ghost) is left behind, and it would have made much more sense for his own father to have returned fifteen years later for better emotional pull. The romance between Ghost and Starfire is sweet and fairly well developed. There's no love scene (don't let the trailer fool you), which was okay with me, but some viewers might miss it. Lastly, when you get to the end of the movie, you kind of find out that the movie...really isn't about him. That's all I'll say. I suppose it's supposed to be some kind of twist, but it was rather unsatisfying and abrupt.
From a historical view, yes, Vikings did visit the shores of America before the arrival of any other Europeans (probably by accident). This movie isn't meant to give the Viking culture it's due, but looking at the history of film, it's interesting from a cultural perspective how the portrayal of Native Americans has changed over the years.
All said and done, I'll give it a B+.
300 is an action movie based on the same-titled graphic novel by Frank Miller. It took three months to film the action, and over a year to produce the animated features and sepia feel of the film. While based on the Battle of Thermopylae, Miller makes no bones that this is not history--it's his own magical blend of history and fantasy. Gerard Butler plays Leonidas, King of Sparta, who defies the approaching Persian army under the direction of their god-king, Xerxes.
This is perhaps the most testosteroney film I've ever seen, in a really good way. The look and feel of the film is beautiful, the action is non-stop, and there's a heroine who more than holds her own with her king in a fairly romantic love story.
What's to love? Butler's performance, and to back that up, Rodrigo Santoro as Xerxes. Nonstop action, blood and guts. If you're squeamish, this might not be the one to see, but for me, it was not as violent as, say, the opening to Saving Private Ryan. It's not realistic, although it is graphic. And finally, there are extremely hot men in leather underpants. Need I say more?
What's not to love? If you can't take off the historical accuracy glasses OR if you can't stand the typical comic book 'relevancy' lines--stuff that makes the story applicable to today's society--don't see it. Otherwise...enjoy!
Dirt is a new, edgy drama uleashed by FX about five weeks ago. It stars Courtney Cox as Lucy Spiller, the cold, balls-to-the-wall editor of two magazines--Dirt and Now. By the third episode, she's managed to convince the owner to merge them into one rag called Dirt Now. She and her staff scare up salacious (and somehow vaguely familiar) Hollywood gossip, including a dead rapper's head in a jar and pics of a dead, pregnant starlet. They also demonstrate how they get and protect their sources.
But the best part about Dirt isn't that Courney Cox plays so against her Friends stereotype, that she cusses like a sailor, or gives a rabid toast at her own mother's wedding. No, the best part about Dirt is ace photographer Don Konkey, played by Ian Hart. Don went to journalism school with Lucy and always comes through for her...but he's schizophrenic. For the record, schizophrenia itself is NOT great, but the way Hart plays it is spellbinding. He's nailed it to the floor, and I can't look away.
Dirt airs on FX on Tuesdays at 10 p.m. EST, and reruns Saturday and Sunday late nights on FX.
So, it's girl's night out, and while this wouldn't be my first pick, hey. It's a holiday movie, and guess what? It's the holidays! Starring Jude Law, Careron Diaz, Jack Black, and Kate Winslet. Two women with similar relationship issues meet online and decide to swap houses for two weeks (including Christmas). Mayhem and romance ensue.
I thought "cliche"! I thought "dull"! I was wrong.
I loved this movie. I loved that it was not a cliche. I loved that they portrayed people with real life issues, dating and otherwise. I loved that they built all the relationships, not just the romantic ones. I loved that on one level or another, I could relate to each and every character.
Loved it!
And shout out to my brother, who brought the site back to the land of the viewable (if not living). Kinda nice to have a vacation, but really sick of talking to myself!
I wouldn't exactly call either of these "holiday flicks." In fact, aside from the idea that people have the time to see movies over the holidays, I have to wonder about the timing of the releases for Bobby and Apocalypto. Which didn't stop me from seeing either of them.
Bobby
It's tough to watch movies like this, simply because you already know how it ends. The movie, written and directed by Emilio Esteves, has a great cast, from Sharon Stone, William H. Macy, Demi Moore, Helen Hunt, Lindsay Lohan, and Elijah Wood (big breath) Harry Bellefonte, Ashton Kutcher, Christian Slater, Laurence Fishbourne, Joshua Jackson, and Anthony Hopkins. It's not so much about Bobby Kennedy, per se, as these 20 or so people who were present at his assassination. Why they were there and how they were affected.
I've always been interested in the Kennedys (like any average American, lol), but more interested in Bobby because he *seemed* to me to be the "right man" to be president. Joe died in the war, Jack was in it for ambition's sake, and well, we all know about Ted. But Bobby had very profound messages--highly idealistic. Of all the assassinations that took place in the 1960's, this seems to have been the one that finally broke American political spirit. Hell, it gave us Richard Nixon.
Having said that, this movie does have an agenda, whether you agree with it or not. It says a lot about Iraq, race relations, and politics, and not in a subtle way. Be warned--you'll come out thinking so much your head hurts, and possibly mildly depressed about the state of our nation.
Apocalypto
Say what you want about Mel Gibson. The man can make a movie. The storytelling, characterization, etc., made you care about this particular tribe, then narrowed it down to this particular man and his family. I was on the edge of my seat from the beginning of the film. Warning: there's quite a bit of blood and gore (some rather campy). Personally, I can defend it because the Mayan civilization was strictly built on conquest and blood sacrifice. As far as historical detail, well, the Aztecs were really the ones in power when the Spanish rowed ashore, not the Mayans. Same story, different empire.
It's made fairly clear that the Mayan civilization was decadent and wasteful--in fact, that's to what most historians attribute their downfall. They used up the forest, the soil, and killed nearly everyone they could find as a sacrifice to appease their gods so they could have better crops. Superimpose that mentality onto the modern Western world and draw your own conclusions.
"Really? You're going to the Motley Crue/Aerosmith concert? Really?" I'm not sure why it's such a big surprise, I suppose it's my demure exterior. *snicker* But if you were to ask me my favorite group? Hands down. Aerosmith. Seen them about ten times and saw them again last night.
L. and I were discussing the concert afterward, and she said, "The first song I really remember was in the third grade--Pink Floyd's 'The Wall'." Yep. That's right on target. I grew up with Bon Jovi and Poison and the Crue. 1983 was about the time I discovered Aerosmith, with their Permanent Vacation release--Rag Doll, Dude Looks Like a Lady, and my favorite off that release, St. John. Then I got into the back catalog. I was in love.
Last night, Motley Crue (all the original members) opened for Aerosmith. While I like a handful of their songs, and didn't mind seeing them...the truth came out after they closed and Aerosmith came out. The Crue are still boys. They paled next to the finely tuned catalog of the Bad Boys. So yes, I love metal. More specifically, I love Aerosmith. I'll catch anything they feel like throwing out there.
I'm also fairly certain Steven Tyler and Joe Perry have made some kind of pact with the devil, wherein they don't actually age. They other guys look like hell, but those two? Shoot. Interesting crowd, too. Just a tad creepy to have a bevy of 13-year-olds raving about how sexy 55-year-old men are.
One day soon, we'll discuss my growing love of anything connected with Rob Zombie. Soon. I promise, as soon as I have some reasonable explanation.
I like film noir. I like James Ellroy. I like Brian DePalma. I carried no particular biases against any of the cast. And I have biases, believe me. I didn't mind the movie, but I didn't love it, either. I'd read the book, and thank goodness--otherwise I'd still be sitting in the theatre, trying to figure it out, like the two ladies I passed on my way out. I still feel guilty for not sitting down and drawing them a map, 'cause that's what they needed.
Let's put it this way--James Ellroy writes a tight story. Tighter than tight. Tighter than...well, there are a couple really entertaining euphanisms in the flick that describe his kind of 'tight'. Everything ties up in the end, and I do mean everything. Even if it doesn't make sense in the moment. When you're reading, it's a mental adventure because you just know that somewhere somehow, all these random bits are going to fit together.
Unfortunately, this kind of story doesn't always translate so well to film. And this is one of those times. LA Confidential got Ellory right. The Black Dahlia did not. And now I *might* have a Josh Hartnett bias. I should be impressed he does internal angst so well...but sheesh. His self-pity nearly turns me against him in the end.
I recently spent some quality time updating my Amazon.com wishlist. Among the items added to the list are a few of my REALLY favorite things that I can't get...yet!
Prison Break (season one) DVD - this title will be released August 8, 2006.
Lost (season two) DVD - this title will be released September 5, 2006.
The Open Door (CD) by Evanescence - this title will be released October 3, 2006.
The Rising Tide: A Novel of the Second World War by Jeff Shaara - this item will be released November 7, 2006.
I don't mind waiting for the good stuff. Patience is a virtue, right? ANSWER ME!!! I know you're out there, I can hear you breathe...oh, that's me. Sorry.
Internal Gal's Entertainment Review
"Based on the hit books by Tom Sniegoski, starring Paul Wesley and Tom Skerritt. FALLEN tells the story of a recently adopted teenage orphan, Aaron, and his search for his identity. On Aaron’s 18th birthday he begins to experience strange phenomena—animals talking to him, terrifyingly real nightmares—and begins to realize that he may have a destiny greater than he ever imagined."
I don't usually watch ABC Family Channel, but this show caught my eye for the subject matter, which is along the same lines as my paranormals. I give it a grade of "B", mostly 'cause a thirty-five-year-old single superhero isn't their target audience.
The bad: I was confused about who was who in the heavenly order--and I understand this misunderstanding was integral to the plot. Still distracting. The old trick of "white hat= good, black hat = bad" didn't work either. You got me! I thought the lead was a little stiff, and too old to play a high school senior. His anguish seemed very cerebral, where I would have like more emotion [go figure].
The good: Tom Skerritt! His performance was awesome, as was that of the child who played the autistic son. The writers/producers did two things very well. First, the tension was broken up with humor, mostly by the talking dog named Gabriel. Second, the juxtaposition of Aaron's normal life against his new reality was touching and real, very Buffyesque.
As a side note, it IS possible to write a piece about angels without a character named Gabriel, just as it IS possible to write a historical where the scoundrel-hero doesn't ride a black horse named Diablo.
Check out the website, there's some cool stuff there; it appears that if this goes over well, there will be more. Which would be awesome, 'cause there were some holes in the backstory I'd like filled in!
So I drove to Raleigh (Clayton) and back this weekend to visit a friend, about 6 hours total in the car. There are always certain CDs I bring and listen to on the road:
~The Committments (soundtrack)
~Kelly Clarkson (Breakaway)
~Soupdragons (Hotwired)
~Hootie & the Blowfish (Cracked Rear View)
~No Doubt (Rock Steady)
~Moby (Play)
~Bon Jovi (Best of)
~Rob Thomas (Something to be)
I won't tell you what delacacies I eat only in the car. What do you listen to in the car?
When this show hit the Fox air last year, I tried to watch it. Well, I had it on. The first episode didn't work for me--pretty slow with the backstory, and I couldn't latch on to who the characters were and what grand conspiracy they wanted to unwind.
I got it now. Over the weekend, FX aired a Prison Break marathon to prep for the new episode that aired last night. I found myself flipping back and forth between that and the basketball tournament. Consider me sucked in--the new eppie last night actually made jaded and cynical me cry.
Stop laughing!
So I slammed my hand in the employee breakroom door...and now I'm hunting and pecking. Can you get worker's comp for stupidity?
Oprah's interview with James Frey (author of A Million Little Pieces) is all over the press this morning. I sincerely hope the book does help people, and I also hope that publishers will take a closer look at the memoirs they decide to publish--fact-checking wasn't Oprah's job, although she did receive warnings about the authenticity of this book. It's unfortunate.
I watched Lost last night and got all excited again. Charlie's issues are confusing to say the least, but for my teaching purposes...the episode showcased the arrivial of religious ritual. While it's been dabbled in before, Claire and Aaron's baptism is the most solid evidence to date.
On Tuesday, my friend Charles and I went to see Underworld: Evolution. He'd turned me on to the first movie. We were both disappointed--gore, violence and sex overrode any kind of redeeming plot or message. Since the first movie had such a big message, it would be difficult to follow up. One of the ladies at Romance Divas said it seemed like the order of the movies should have been reversed. Charles made seeing the movie an assignment for his Media History class and the reaction was much the same: save your money.
Charles and his friends @ Emulsion Arts are nominated for three regional Emmys! The ceremony is this weekend--good luck!
Lost: Aside from all the fun stuff that happened on Lost this week, chalk up another World Civ lesson: "How long will it take to build an army?" I was probably the only one excited to see their civilization reach the point where they need a 'military'. Enteraining, educational, eye candy. Who's not watching this show?
Fitness: When I moved last summer, going to the gym became inconvenient. The result? I lost weight, but only because muscle weighs more than the 'f' word. I won a $100 gift card at our Holiday Party and spent it yesterday on a new pair of running shoes. Now that I'm also done being sick, I'm heading back, inconvenient or not.
Writing: I recieved Debra Dixon's Goal, Motivation, Conflict in my mailbox yesterday. I also downloaded Patricia Wrede's "Worldbuilding" kit.
Reading: I finished Are you Lonesome Tonight, about a woman's long term affair and love child with Elvis. She's either telling the truth or a very convincing delusional. I also picked up Freakeonomics, which has been in the news lately, and cracked open The Lost Books of the Bible for research.
GO PANTHERS!
I've had the iPod for over a year, but my computer wasn't up to date enough to run it. Until recently. Yes, I have wasted much time uploading music to this tiny white device. She's pretty. She's slick. She's portable. I love her. Over at Romance Divas, there's a thread about using music in your writing, creating soundtracks for your WIPs. I do this, and the iPod makes it sooo much easier! I justify the 'wasting' of time now by saying it will take less time to create such masterpieces of mood in the future.
RD also has a thread about workspace. Some are messy, some (like mine) are insanely clean. I function better in an organized space. Last night, I got even more organized. I went through all my disks and actually labeled them correctly - which story is where, which are research and for what. Took me two hours, but now I can grab whatever I need. Again, in the name of saving time later, lol. I had no idea I had so many stories started.
And I decided: while I work on revisions for the paranormals, I'm also going to finally finish up that pesky western I started, oh, six years ago (thanks for the reminder, Christa!). 'Bout time! What uncompleted WIP is hurling insults at you from the 'later' pile?