I usually don't get hung up on labels, designer or otherwise. Usually, the store brand or an off-brand is good enough for me. However, there are a few things I use both in my daily life and occasionally, where I do prefer the "brand name". Here's the list, in no particular order, as is usually the case unless otherwise noted:
1. Peter Pan peanut butter 2. Wrangler Jeans 3. Method cleaning products 4. Metromint bottled water 5. Silk soymilk 6. Meow Mix cat food*
*This is an interesting one. I won't say she prefers Meow Mix, but that's what she's been eating for so long, the cat is probably used to it. But, she eats a lot of it, so she must like it.
Two side notes:
A: Unless I'm feeling adventurous up here, I usually look for Labatt Blue, since Schlafly Beers aren't available up here.
B: I divide my shopping loyalties up here in western NY. But as far as national companies go, I prefer to shop at Home Depot, since they were good to me for 3 years.
You all know what a "man crush" is, don't you? It's not like a regular crush. There's nothing romantic about it. It's where a guy just wants to hang out with a celebrity (however you define that term) and basically just be the guy's friend. Or to put it another way, it a level of fandom that still healthy, and has not yet reached creepy. Here's a list of my man-crushes:
1. Barack Obama 2. M. Night Shyamalan 3. Matt Groening 4. Woody Allen 5. Albert Pujols 6. Humphrey Bogart 7. Padraig Harrington 8. Tony Reali 9. Jeff (he knows who he is) 10. Steven Jackson 11. Peyton Manning 12. Brad Boyes
I've noticed that the bulk of the hits on this particular blog have been the result of someone searching for any combination of the words/phrases "tony reali", "ash wednesday" etc.
He does this every year. Apparently, it's a big thing every year. Wonder why that is. What I mean is, I did some searching of my own and apparently there's a fair amount of interest and buzz about it in various sectors of the blogosphere.
I understand Ash Wednesday. I'm one of the people who doles out the ashes. Just wondering what all the buzz is about. Apparently there are people who don't realize the significance of ashes on the forehead for Ash Wednesday.
But, I guess if it gets a dialogue going, it's OK. Kudos to you, Tony!
Thoughts?
PS: The link for the pic: http://bigheaddc.com/category/tv/page/2/
Did anybody else catch the 2 ash crosses on today's episode of ESPN's "Around The Horn" program. One was worn by host Tony Reali and the other was sported by panelist/LA Times columnist Bill Plaschke.
So, how did you do with your Oscar picks, dear reader? We'll get to my scorecard in a bit. First, I want to comment on a few things from last night's telecast.
I thought High Jackman did OK as the host. It's hard to replace Billy Crystal, but the past few hosts have been good. I liked Jon Stewart and Ellen DeGeneres as hosts. But, I know that's also probably a tough, nerve-wracking job, so kudos to anyone who does it.
I also really liked the break with tradition regarding presentations of acting awards. Instead of having last year's winner, the award was presented by 5 winners of the award. Great job, whoever thought of that!
OK, on to the big show. Here's how I scored:
Best Picture:
I was wrong on both accounts. I said "The Reader" should win, but that "Benjamin Button" would win. But, I am completely comfortable with "Slumdog Millionaire" as the winner.
Best Director:
I was right on both accounts. I picked Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) in both the should win and will win categories.
Best Actor:
I was half-right. I thought the one that would win was too close call between Sean Penn and Brad Pitt. Keep in mind, I posted that before actually seeing "Milk". After that, I had a feeling Sean Penn would take home the prize. I was still a bit skeptical, considering the money that could be made off saying "Academy Award winner Brad Pitt". And I was pulling for Mickey Rourke as the one who should win.
Best Actress:
Again, right of both accounts. I picked her as the should win and will win.
Best Supporting Actor:
Another case of being half-right. I was really pulling for Heath Ledger, and he won. However, I know that Philip Seymour Hoffman is an amazing actor, and I actually picked him as my will win choice, simply because, as science fiction films so rarely get the recognition they deserve, superhero films get even less.
Best Supporting Actress:
Another case of being half-right. I was pulling for Penelope Cruz, mostly because her role was in a Woody Allen film. And that's precisely why I didn't pick her as my will win choice. I think the Academy is still kind of sympathetic to Woody, but most of society is not. But she surprised me by winning.
That's one of things I like best about film: The wonderful debates and discussions that come from seeing and honoring them.
A guy in my position isn't supposed to like this movie. But, I found it to worthy of its Best Picture nomination.
This biopic tells the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay poltician elected to major office. It tells not so much his entire life, but his life and political career from 1970 until 1978, when he was assasinated. It tells the story of several failed campaigns and relationships.
Even if you, dear reader, are put off by the subject material, there is still a good deal to like about this film. The most obvious thing to praise is Sean Penn's performance in the title role. I don't always get Sean Penn. I admit that. But, he's had some dynamite performances. Add this to the list. Penn is phenomenal in this role.
Also, not to be missed is Josh Brolin (who seems to be in everything, like that Samuel L. Jackson fellow I mentioned in the previous post) as dan White. Brolin performs extremely well as every angry white guy you know.
Even though the time frame of the film is the 1970s, the core of the film is very timely. Harvey begins his political career as a simple community activist. He loses several elections, but learns what changes must be made, as well as gaining supporters with each election cycle. He attracts supporters by reaching out across various diversities with a message of hope. Sound familiar?
If viewed only on that simplistic poltical level, you still end up with an inspirational film.
The discussion factor is extremely high in this film. The biggest issue and thrust of the film is, of course, gay rights. Other issues which the film brings up is are poltical campaigns, community activism, what real political power is, among others.
The "that guy" factor is so-so in this film. Emile Hirsch is the most notable.
Since the Academy Awards are on this evening, and since I have made it my personal mission this year to see all of the best picture nominees, I guess I should probably weigh in on tonight awards.
I'm only picking the so-called "Big 5": Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress. I will give my pick of what should win (SW), and what I believe will win (WW). Much of this is moot, since "Gran Torino" got the shaft. I'll report later on my scorecard.
Best Picture: SW- The Reader WW- Benjamin Button
Best Director: SW- Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) WW- same
Best Actor: SW- Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) WW- Sean Penn (Milk) or Brad Pitt (Benjamin Button)
Best Actress: SW- Kate Winslet (The Reader) WW- same
Best Supporting Actor: SW- Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) WW- Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt)
Best Supporting Actress SW- Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) WW- Taraji P. Henson (Benjamin Button)
This film has the potential to be this year's "Titanic" for me. And that's NOT a good thing. It's not that I didn't like this movie. I just think it's a bit overrated. Some parts were really cool, and some parts incredibly boring. And it is LONG! I don't have a problem with films being lengthy, but this one is long. It runs nearly 3 hours, and you know it. And at the risk of stating the obvious ad nauseum, I think I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called "Forrest Gump." The connection is inescapable.
Brad Pitt gives a better-than-average performance. By that, I mean his performance is better than say, Ocean's 12 or 13, but not as good as "Legends of the Fall". And, I hate to say it, but I think I'm getting a little tired of Cate Blanchett. Her performance is her standard good.
The film does have an interesting premise. It's based (loosely,I understand) on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, of "The Great Gatsby" fame. It centers around a child born with all symptoms of being elderly. As he grows up, he actually ages backward. So, when he dies, he is an infant. Like I said, interesting premise.
It feels like this movie got its nomination for Best Picture on its technical merits. And from that standpoint, it is very well done. Kudos to make-up, special effects, and costuming. Again, I have to give props to the director for bringing something like this to life. In other words, it takes a great deal of vision to take a short story and make 3 hours of film out if it.
There is, like most of my recently reviewed films a good discussion factor. One, obviously is the technical excellence of the film. Beyond this, there are issues of being in love, what it really means "to age", mortality, and are things that we encounter in our lives chance, or do they serve a purpose (a recurring theme this year)?
The "That Guy Factor" is pretty good here. In fact, one of the "that guys" is a woman. This is Tilda Swinton, as the wife of spy, whom Benjamin meets and has an affair with in Russia. She's been in lots of films, but might be best known (at least among this readership) as the White Witch in the first Narnia movie. Also here in a bit part is a character actor Elias Koteas. He also has been in lots of films. But to me he'll always be Casey Jones from the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie from when I was a kid.
It's easy to see why the Academy would have nominated this film for Best Picture. I don't think it deserved it, especially since I happen to believe that Gran Torino got royally snubbed. If it does win, I'll always remember it as the new "Titanic": An overly long movie that a lot of people liked, but I didn't. Or, I'll always remember it as the new "Titanic": A film that robbed much more deserving films of the recognition they deserved.
We took the play on the road (see previous post regarding the play). We had the second performance at Immanuel Lutheran Church in Gowanda, NY. These are the pics from that night.
The play was titled, "The Great Geek Tragedy". It's about a guy who has had all sorts of terrible things happen to him in his life, but has always had his faith to get him through them. As the play unfolds, he begins to have a crisis of faith. And he is helped along in that crisis by a number of the people whom he has touched throughout his life.
As some of you may or may not know, I was in a play recently. A friend, and fellow pastor in my circuit, has a real gift for storytelling. He wrote and directed it. He's also the big guy in 2 of the pics. These are the pics from dress rehearsal.
These pics were taken ealier in the month of February. There was a string of snowy days, and it got pretty deep. It was deeper than I ever saw back home in the STL. And I just now got around to posting them. Enjoy the pics!
So, I finally saw this film. I had several people highly recommend it to me. Plus, I had to see it as another part of my quest to see all of this year's Best Picture nominees.
It took me a little while to get into it, but once I did, it was pretty rewarding. The film, more than anything, is a love story. It's also a little far-fetched. But outside of that, it was a decent film. At the bare minimum, it was deserving of the Best Picture nod. Much more so than "Frost/Nixon". But, you already read that post.
The film is the story of a young man from the slums of Mumbai, India (formerly Bombay) who gets a chance to compete on the Indian television version "Who wants to be a Millionaire?" He scores better than anyone in the history of the show. Thus, he is accused cheating. The host of the show, as well as the police, want to know how it is that a kid from the slums could know so much. The answers to the questions are provided by his retelling his life story to the police. In other words, every experience he has had in his life has led him to the answer to one of the show's questions.
Like I said, a bit far-fetched, but what love story isn't (except Annie Hall)?
That said, I do have to praise the directing. This was a big story, and it took a great vision to bring it all together, to make sure all the details fit.
The discussion factor is pretty high here. The biggest conversation piece of the film is its view of life. Does everything fit together? Are we the sum total of our experiences? Can love be that strong? It also address issues of family, class, child exploitation, and a host of others.
I am not familiar enough with the actors in the film to even make an attempt at a "that guy" factor.
This film is certainly worth seeing. It also would be my pick for Best Picture, if The Reader were not also nominated.
In all honesty, Pepsi Max is just the old Diet Pepsi Max repackaged and renamed. That said, it is pretty tasty. I normally don't like diet sodas as a rule (or diet pops, depending on where you live). However, there are exceptions: Coke Zero is decent, as are the diet fruit-flavored ones from Wegman's. But this one sticks with me. There's a couple reasons for this. And no, it isn't the fact that there's supposed to be ginseng in there. I personally don't think there's enough ginseng to worry about. But I digress.
What got me into it was the commercial above. It was the one that ran during this year's Super Bowl. I think you'll find it pretty amusing.
Bottom line? Advertising works!
As always, I receive no compensation, monetary or otherwise for this endorsement.
To my anonymous reader in Mountlake Terrace who commented on my post from January:
Please identify youself. I have an idea of who it might be, but I am not sure. if you get this, let me know. I'd also like to know how you know certain things about my present.
Other question: Who/what is Patches?
Thanks!
If you don't want to ID yourself by comment, email me: pastoragne@yahoo.com
There are 2 cards which I must lay out on the table before I begin the actual review. One, I am on a personal quest to see all of the nominees for Best Picture. And 2, drama is my favorite genre of film. I mean, I love a good heavy drama. Those types of movies satisfy me like a good nap or a great meal. If this is the case, then "The Reader" certainly hit the spot.
The film is about a teenager who random meets, then begins an affair with a middle-aged woman. They spend time together, they make love, and he reads to her various literary classics which he is studying in school. The affair lasts a summer, but the young man finds that she has left an indelible mark on his life. He encounters her years later when, as a law student, he observes the woman on trial at Nuremberg, accused of being in the SS and participating in the Nazi atrocities. This, of course, make him conflicted. The rest of the film deals with her life in prison, and how they carry on their "affair", but in a different way. He records classic literature on tape and sends it to her.
The film is at times both touching and depressing. I got the sense that in some odd way, they really do love each other, even though they do not extend the physical aspects of their affair past that one summer. After all, doomed love, tragic love, tortured love is a theme which has inspired some of the world's greatest works of art.
The acting was very, very good. Kate Winslet gives a fine performance. All she needs to become the next Meryl Streep is a few more accents and about 20 more Oscar nods. That said, her performance is really strong in this one. It is easy and tempting to simply say that she gives a powerful performance as a former Nazi. But there are other facets of her character as well. Particularly of note is her behavior at the beginning of the affair. She, teaches the youth to be a lover, and then to be a better one. Winslet pulls this off so well, that the reading itself becomes erotic. Additionally, Ralph Fiennes gives a strong, but understated performance. He plays the teenager as an adult (post-law school).
The film is very deep when it comes to the discussion factor. In other words, the film raises many issues for discussion. These include (but are not limited to) age issues in relationships, the nature of love, the place and limits of forgiveness in relationships, how those relationships change over time, the definition of justice and its relation to law, as well as others.
There's really only one (for me anyway) identifiable person to fit the "that guy" factor. In this case it's Bruno Ganz. He played Hitler in "Downfall". But I recognized him as Staupitz from the 2003 film "Luther."
Just as an aside, this is probably my pick for Best Picture right now.
I'm a big fan of the old 8-bit NES video game system. What can I say, I'm kinda old school, that way. I guess. It seems like the games were simpler. I can't get to level anything now. Anyway, here's a list of my fave games.
1. The Legend of Zelda 2. Super Mario Bros. 2 3. Megaman 2 4. Mike Tyson's Punch Out! 5. Duck Hunt 6. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 7. Excitebike 8. Dragon Warrior 9. Batman
I was very much looking forward to seeing this film. I finally got an opportunity on Saturday. I gotta say, the film left me a bit confused. Not as to the plot or to the message, mind you. I am confused as to why it was nominated for Best Picture, while Gran Torino was snubbed.
This is not to say that "Frost/Nixon" is not a good movie. It is. It features some strong performances by the actors. In fact, these performances (specifically Frank Langella as Nixon) are probably what got the film the nomination. Actually, that's not really a fair statement. Let me explain why.
See, the Academy Awards, in addition to honoring the art of film making, serve as a good cultural barometer. In other words, it's possible to gauge the general mood of the populace by observing what the Academy chooses to honor. (Or, at least, it's possible to gauge the mood of the previous year.) This, I believe, is at the heart of the reason for the nomination.
There was, prior to the November presidential election, a tense mood in the United States. There was also a great deal of anger and anxiety. And a large portion of that anger and anxiety was assigned to the previous administration. Many, including myself) felt the administration was corrupt, and arrogant in its corruption. Many also, including myself, we upset because the administration seemed to be getting away with it. Essentially, we wanted some sort of comeuppance.
This was the way many people also felt about and during the Nixon administration. This is best demonstrated in the line from the film, "I want to give Richard Nixon the trial he never had." A good summation of the times. What I'm getting at here is that there is a sense (or was a sense) of needing a similar event from George W. Bush. I'm not so sure of the necessity for that now. After all, he had approval ratings lower than Nixon's, and gave much more incriminating testimony in our modern 24-hour news cycles. Plus, we are already seeing the results of that administration's policies both domestically (economic crisis) and internationally (America's terrible reputation in most of the world).
But I digress. The point is, you cannot stop the people from making such parallels. Let me share 1 thing which highlights this. The big, climactic line in the film is when Nixon says, "When the president does it, it's not illegal." When that line was aid, several people in the theater around me whispered, "That sounds like Bush." Take that for what it's worth.
One good thing about this movie is that it weaves in archival footage from the times. But, as I said before, without the strong performances, this probably wouldn't have garnered the Best Picture nomination. But the best word to describe this film is "effective".
The discussion factor is high. Not only for the parallels I mentioned above. Other issues mentioned include, but are not limited to the distinction between power and authority, the limits of presidential power, the use of media in all aspects of life, as well as others.
This is a post for all my dear readers who find themselves killing a few seconds on my blog instead of watching the Super Bowl. Or for those who are watching the game, and need some other sort of distraction.
Basically, here's a few of my favorite video clips. Enjoy!
This blog marks the end of a hiatus. This blog has had many incarnations, some successful, some not so much.
Despite the title, I hope to not do much complaining. Most of this blog will be reactions and lists, thoughts and ideas.
This blog will probably not intoduce anything new or be very deep. In fact, most of what's on here will probably be quite inocuous and/or inane (to most of you anyway).
But, who knows? Maybe it'll give you something to talk about while you're bored.
