A wintry death

You guys. Snow + my car + my absolute inability to force myself to replace my sad old tires with anything even slightly more snow appropriate = all of these things will lead me to ruin before this winter is over. I love this canyon. I wish I could squash it into a tiny package, wrap it in sunshine and that wonderful smell it has after rain and then stuff it away in a little corner of my heart FOR ALL TIME, but the winter commute INTO the canyon is a completely different story. It's like running down a trail, coming face to face with a bear, the bear seeing you, running towards you, swiping at your face with its massive claws and missing by millimeters. That feeling you would have in your heart? That's how I feel when it's snowing and I somehow make it to work safely.

Off to ponder what other folksy nature-related metaphors I can share with you this morning.....

In the meantime, listen to this:



And then read the famously snarky A.O. Scott's review of Lincoln. It's not unusual for him to be so eloquent, but this kind of commendation and reverence is incredibly unusual coming from him. It is a wonderfully well-written review (I love and appreciate a good movie review), and I'm incredibly excited to watch this movie.

So...I posted a while ago about a review of the movie "Anonymous" (I would put a picture here if I cared enough about it, but I don't, so DEAL with a pictureless post), and I went to see it as soon as it came out here because, whatever, I love movies, OK!? And even more than movies, I love a good period piece. Y'all know me. Anyways, I just realized that it's been weeks and I've failed to say anything about it (and a million other movies), partly because I was just. So. Disgusted. by it.

So here's the thing. Hopefully you know a little bit about Shakespeare. And hopefully you know a little bit about alternate theories of authorship of his works. One of the most popular (and most perplexing and obnoxious) theories started sometime in the 1920s with someone who said to himself one day "well this Shakespeare fellow was lower class. And poorly educated. And so was his family. So there is NO possible way that he would have been smart enough to pen the most transcendent works of the English language. No effing way, man" (they talked like that in the twenties). So this man set out to figure out who else could have been behind it and came up with Edward de Vere, then Earl of Oxford. He was wealthy, he was smart, he was close to the royal family (well the royal person, Elizabeth didn't exactly have a family...), somebody said one time that he was a poet, blah blah blah, it must have been him!

Fast-forward about 90 years, and, despite the fact that 10 of Shakespeare's plays were not performed or published before Oxford's death (and they could not have been published posthumously because some refer to events that didn't happen until years after his death), the theory only continues to grow in popularity, supported and propogated by celebrities (and why not? they're famous, so that makes them smarter than us, righ?!), despite the best efforts of prominent Shakespearean scholars to debunk this piece of ridonculosity (Shakespeare made up words, so I can too. Werd yo.)

So all this was floating around in my mind before I went to see "Anonymous", but I thought I'd find a pretty good movie despite the absurdity of its premise. Unfortunately, I found myself unable to willfully suspend my disbelief and enjoy the movie for its own sake. Why, you ask? Because, as the film went on, that premise struck me as more and more offensive. What? I was offended by a movie?!?? Yes, apparently I'm not beyond feeling. Or something.

Anyways, what offended me so much is that this whole theory (and the movie that supports it- director Roland Emmerich has become a major proponent, and released with the movie, a documentary by his prodcution company and lesson plans to be sent to high schools so kids could learn about this hogwash) is based on the idea that poor/uneducated/obscure people cannot do extraordinary things. Can you imagine tteaching that to high schoolers? Oh hey kids, do great stuff with your lives, but probably just accept that since you're pretty average you'll never do anything better than average, and if you do, the credit will go to someone else, because who would seriously believe that a kid like you could do anything extraordinary? I don't know why this makes me so mad, but it just does.

Oh and on top of that, the people who made this movie and who support the Oxfordian theory of authorship probably mourned the recent loss of Steve Jobs, designer and entrepeneur extraordinaire, which strikes me as ironic because, like Shakespeare himself, Jobs' early life was rather unextraordinary.

And. AND...should I spoiler this? don't read any further if you don't want spoilers.

According to this movie, Queen Elizabeth was a raging wanton who bore many children who were farmed out to be raised in anonymity by her noble vassals. So she never knew who they were. So we find out as the movie progresses that Oxford had an affair with Elizabeth that resulted in a child. NOT KNOWING THAT HE HIMSELF HAD BEEN ONE OF HER CAST-OFF CHILDREN. WHAT:SODfao;sh;oqw??!~!orh;oh?!?!?!?!??!! Oh yeah and they had a kid together. So Elizabeth had a child with her son. HER SON.

I like to keep an open mind when it comes to history, but this type of historical revisionism, that drags major players down to the gutter without any supporting evidence is just disgusting.

UGH. What a frustrating movie. I actually almost walked out of it. For me to even consider walking out of a movie is...pretty extreme. It is classist, it is disrespectful, and on top of that, probably its worst crime is that it's just not entertaining.

Not. Recommended.

I love the New York Times movie reviewers because...well, for lots of reasons, but because, while being oh so smart, they're not afraid to just lay it all out there. Each review ends with the movie's rating, and the reasons for that rating. Usually the reasons have been tweaked.

The coda to A.O. Scott's delightful review of "Anonymous" (you know, that movie that puts forth the old theory that Shakespeare's plays were written by a well-heeled noble supporter?) reads thusly:

"“Anonymous” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Swordplay, bodice ripping, bawdy speech and the cold-blooded murder of the truth."

Spectacular. With just that last sentence, Scott simultaneously rips the movie apart AND increases my desire to watch it.

You guys, ALL the good jobs open up when I'm not looking! I'm ticked. Today I saw the perfect job listing (archivist, working with lots of AV, in ATL at the Carter Presidential Library- I'm an archivist, I've worked with tons of AV, ATL is close to Chattanooga!) but I just can't bring myself to apply because if, on the off chance that I actually got it, I would have to leave my internship about 5 months early, and I know they would understand me leaving, but I just cant bear the thought of leaving so long before it's over! I was so excited when I got this because finally I would have some kind of experience that lasted longer than 4-6 months. I need to get a solid year on my resume.

Job application mental block ftw. ARG.

In other news:

"Crazy, Stupid, Love" was both crazy and stupid, but also confusing (not in a bad way) and entertaining. And oh honey, I never though Ryan Gosling was attractive until I saw this, but (pardon the expression), ROWR. ALSO, the character with whom I share a name is A CREEPER. I don't care if I'm giving you spoilers, but I am just so appalled because she has something unsavory going on inside her brain that drives her to give naked pictures of herself to a THRTEEN-YEAR-OLD BOY.

I saw X-Men: First Class this weekend. I was not dissatisfied at having spent money on this, but that may only be because my expectations were kept so low by the last few movies. Mostly I was happy to have an excuse to stare at James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender for a couple of hours.

All that said, it was a fairly goofy movie with a disproportionate number of go-go boots and very mini miniskirts (but I'm pretty sure that's an accurate representation of the time period).

I don't really have much else to say about it.

I finally got to see the "Cave of Forgotten Dreams". I love going to the downtown theater by myself (even though it seems hopelessly pathetic). It's close enough that I can go on my bike and breeze past all the diners and trade-conference-attendees that generally clog the streets in that part of town.

(quick summary for those who have never heard of it, this is a documentary about Chauvet cave in Southern France where, in the early 90s, three hikers discovered a pristine cave containing by far the oldest (32,000 yrs old) cave paintings known. Since its discovery, the cave has been sealed- only a few researchers have been allowed access- to preserve the environment within the cave that has kept the paintings in such good condition for so long)



Anyways, I enjoyed it. I think I had maybe glanced at some photos before of the cave before, but never really paid attention. That's probably a good thing though because I, in my state of ignorance, felt like I was discovering it for the first time with Werner Herzog and his supporting cast of anthropologists and paleontologists as my guides. This is worth seeing just for the footage of the paintings. They are spectacularly beautiful, painted with an understanding of their subjects as well as an artistic interpretation that we tend to think can only be displayed by our modern artists. I think that a lot of our shock and awe at the beauty of the images themselves comes because we forget or can't possibly understand that the people who painted them were probably very similar to us. Sure, different lifestyle, they still had Neanderthals to contend with, etc...but fundamentally I'm positive that they were motivated by the same things that we are. No amount of technology can change the nature of our basic concerns as human beings- survival, relationships, etc...



Herzog manages, even with this epically fascinating (and at times rather dry) subject, to find little flashes of humor. What I love though is that he presents to us the absurdities of some of the guest stars without derision- it seems he's rather fond of the old perfumer with the crazy eyes and the anthropologist who dresses like a mountain cave man in furs and leather (for no apparent reason). There's an interesting parallel between the interest in the lives of the creators of the paintings and the lives of these modern characters- it's the same interest, and we (I) feel the same drive to know more about/understand more about both groups.

At one point, Herzog is interviewing an anthropologist who used to be a circus performer (which is kind of fabulous) who is surprisingly eloquent. He makes what for me was the most poignant point in the film. He says that "past is lost". That, to me, is the greatest tragedy of any profession dealing with the past (like I do, though the more recent past)- the loss of those lives and their lessons. It is painful and it is hard to accept.



Though that was the lesson that stuck with me the most, I think the point Herzog tries to make is exactly the opposite- that the past is not truly lost, not in this case at least, because those ancient artists left behind something of themselves in their paintings. They left evidence that they lived, and they left evidence that they interacted with the world in which they lived, and they left evidence that they understood the world as it is- full of wonder.

(All of the pictures I've added to this post come from the French Ministry of Culture's website dedicated to the cave. Go there to explore a map and images of the cave, as well as to find out more about its history)

Trying to find a job is STRESSING ME OUT.

I haven't left the house in three days because of the snow.

Glee hasn't been on tv for A WHOLE MONTH.

I thought classes started tomorrow, and if it weren't for my department's student affairs coordinator, I would have no idea that they actually start today. THAT was almost a disaster. Once, at BYU, I actually did miss the first day of a class because I couldn't find the HRCB on the map (stupid, right?). I was mad.

Did I ever write about Black Swan? Because all of the above things are not good, but they're not exactly ruining my life. Do you know what did ruin my life? BLACK SWAN. If you are even thinking about watching it, DO NOT. Don't get more curious because I said that and go see it anyways. I am telling you, if you want your life to continue happy and carefree as it has hopefully been to this point, by all that is holy, DO NOT watch that movie. I thought to myself "Ooh, psychological thriller...ballet...what could possibly go wrong? This sounds basically amazing." Little did I know what awaited me was basically a few explicitly, agressively, and violently sexual encounters woven together by things like...oh, Winona Ryder stabbing herself repeatedly in the face with a metal nail file...and...a daughter beating up her mother and breaking her hand by slamming her fingers in a door- over and over and over again...and....lots of terrible bloody self-mutilation. Toned down, this could have been a great movie about one girl's descent into madness (although she really started the movie in madness so maybe descent isn't the correct word...). As it is, it's a two-hour shock-fest, where the shocks are indeed shocking, but have tenuous relevance to the story itself. Blurg.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

I include this picture because this is the way I would MUCH have preferred that Nicolas Cage look in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". Since when do a (to quote the movie) "300 year old rawhide coat" and hair made out of straw translate into an ultra powerful sorcerer? I'm sorry, Nic, but no matter how much you spin, that hair will NOT turn into gold. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE MICE TOLD YOU.

So unfunny fairy tale tangent aside, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" was average. It had some sweet romantic moments, some really delightful Alfred Molina scenes (all of his scenes, actually- his acting is really quite delicious- he did the best he could with a ridiculous script), some scenes of trademark Cageian insanity (which are also guiltily delightful), and lost of unnecessarily silly action sequences and occultism. Magic is awesome, but when the final spell of ultimate evil requires the wicked witch to writhe around on the ground like a...well you don't want to know like what...then it's just too much. I could definitely have gone without the hair swinging.

Final verdict- silly effects+gaudy jewelery+randomly kind of hot Jay Baruchel= C+

Predators

Ok so maybe thats not the real poster, but you get the point. On Saturday I went to see "Predators" with Nicole, fellow librarian. It was...pretty much exactly what I expected, which wasn't much. Imagine, for a second, that the same team that made the original movie set out to do...everything they had already done, in exactly the same style, with a new cast (except for the monsters, of course) and better special effects, and you'll have quite a good idea of what this was like. Bright spots: Adrien Brody and...I hesitate to add him to this list, because he only makes it by sheer force of insanity, but Laurence Fishburne. Also the Yakuza gangster whose name I do not know, but whose scenes were wonderfully referential to older Tokyo gangster films like...well, "Tokyo Gangster" (Kristin, please tell me you remember that). Laurence did the best he could with the material he had, which amounted to not very well with not very much, but it turned out to be one of the more entertaining sections of the entire film. All of that being said, the writing was astonishingly bad, and the violence was over-wrought. It had some really great "ARE THEY SERIOUS?!?!?!?!" moments, but not much else worth going for. Maybe I should start grading movies. I give this one a solid C-.

This definitely had some entertaining previews though. Look up "Machete". I promise you will not be sorry you did.

Inception

Why does A.O. Scott always end up reviewing the movies that I am most anticipating? Where are you Manohla?!?!?

Whatever. It's still a well-written review, though a bit disappointing:

"Admirers of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” and Stanley Kubrick’s “2001” will find themselves in good company, though “Inception” does not come close to matching the impact of those durable cult objects. It trades in crafty puzzles rather than profound mysteries, and gestures in the direction of mighty philosophical questions that Mr. Nolan is finally too tactful, too timid or perhaps just too busy to engage."

Ouch. Not what I wes expecting.

Read the rest here.

Movies!

I haven't posted about movies in a long time and Andrea blogged a rant today about chick flicks and it got me all fired up, so I guess I'm in the mood now.



First up is a real gem- a French movie called "Barbe Bleue" or, in English, "Blue Beard". It's based on a classic fairy tale by Charles Perrault (ever heard of...oh, Cinderella? That's because of him), a 17th century writer and collector of folk stories. If you've read a lot of the Grimm Brothers o Hans Christian Andersen, you know that some fairy tales can get a little out of control, and Blue Beard is no different (seriously- what in the world is this about?). So anyways, in this movie (one of a large number of versions), two young girls in the 50s are narrating. The younger sister forcefully reads the older the story because the younger is fascinated by it. The elder is terrified. The story itself is about two sisters whose father dies, for which happening they are kicked out of their convent/school. Back home, they talk about their neighbor, old Blubeard, who has been married several times, though his wives have all mysteriously disappeared. The younger is obsessed with his wealth and the idea of escaping to his world of wealth and luxury, and accepts his proposal of marriage. Long story short, he leaves one day, giving her all the keys to the palace, telling her to visit every room and explore the whole property, but not to use the small golden key. So what does she do? Of course she figures out which door it opens and goes inside. There, she finds the bodies of his dead wives (though some versions of the story have them alive still, but tortured and imprisoned and nearly dead). She freaks out, leaves the room, and relocks the door. HOWEVER, instead of staying away for months as he promised, he comes back the next day. Of course she is still out of her mind, he notices, and $#!% happens.

So. Morbid, right? Aside from the one terrifying scene, the dead wives, the film is pretty sedate. It's very interesting because while the little gil narrators are spectacular little actresses (it feels so natural!), the acting in the fairy tale is rather wooden, almost emotionless. I've read a number of reviews that really criticize this, but I think it's a deliberate statement by the director, not the sad result of a woeful lack of talent as some have implied. It leaves them as generic representatives of men and women, their relationships a rather bitter commentary on the sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet relationship between the two. It also preserves the feeling that this is a story we're watching, not a reality or any kind of direct representation of it.

That being said, it is wonderfully watchable and definitely worth the time. It's on watch anytime on Netflix right now if you've got some free time (and, of course, a subscription)


THE LAST AIRBENDER: Well, if you're free for a matinee and really don't care how you spend your time, go see it. Otherwise, avoid like the plague. The performances here are painfully wooden, and not on purpose like the previous film. Just painful, especially remembering Mr. Shyamalan's former talent. Sorry M. Night, you've been replaced and overwhelmed for me by the giant of J.J. Abrams.



Well, all that I really have to say about this movie is "Oh HEEEEEEY Bradley Cooper!!!". The plot and writing were completely absurd. That doesn't, however, negate the fact that this is a good movie to escape the heat on a weekend afternoon. Worth a matinee (maybe not in D.C. though, where matinees are NINE DOLLARS). Lots of explosions, one really entertaining bad guy (hey Raul!), and some really silly portrayals of military types.




I think I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year" is the second best Bollywood movie I've ever seen (after "Lagaan", which is no longer available on DVD or Netflix or anywhere really). It's kind of "The Office" meets India without the sarcasm or the great writing. Harpreet Singh reports a client at his first ever job for requesting a bribe, is told by his boss "that's how we roll", and decides to start his own competing company while still at his job and using their resources (but keeping a strict accounting of everything he uses so he can repay it someday). His boss is horrible to him, more and more coworkers join him, then the whole situation blows up and his boss forces him out of business. Heartwarming self-examination and happy resolution ensues. It's a good, simple, solid movie. AND it's under three hours! (My main complaint about the Indian film industry is that it cannot, for the life of it, produce a movie that is less than three hours long- this one actually is, but only by about twenty minutes). Anyways, if your in the mood for something a little different, give it a try. This one's also on watch anytime on Netflix right now.

I feel like four is a good place to stop for tonight. K bye!!!

I don't have anything exciting to blog about right now.

Just a warning.

Last night I saw "Alice in Wonderland". I'm not really a fan of Tim Burton (or Helena Bonham Carter these days, except when she's ridiculous Bellatrix...or to be honest Johnny Depp, I'm not sure his career is going where he thinks it is right now) so I was not awaiting this premiere with baited breath, but you know how I love movies in general, and especially movies at midnight. They're just better.

That being said, I was really impressed. I was not creeped out as I thought I would be, it was hilarious, the costumes were insane (in the best way possible), the beasts were cuddly, the mouse carried around an eyeball for most of the movie, Mia Wasikowska has the cutest accent imaginable, Johnny Depp was...orange, Helena Bonham Carter had pigs and monkeys in place of table or chair legs, and...I want to watch it again already. Always a good sign.

So in summary, I'm mad they only had 3D and it cost me $13, but it was mostly worth that much.

All I write about these days are movies, I'm sorry. My life just isn't all that exciting. I dog-sit. I do homework. I have class on the internet (gag me). I sew. I have weekly Glee night. I gossip. I read. I volunteer. Have I written about that yet?

I started volunteering a while ago at two museums in the area. One, the National Medal of Honor Museum, has a separate archive where I spend a few hours each week. It's a tiny museum located in the local mall for the time being because the old location was a moldy flooded nightmare. The other, the Hunter Museum of American Art, is a larger, more financially sound institution where I work in the library each week. The main volunteer is Frances. She's been there for 30 years, is in her 80's, can't hear anything I say, and is rather charming. They still use a card catalog (which they are outgrowing...I keep wanting to tell them just to scrap it all and try something a bit more modern, but the curators prefer this...I have no idea why), and I do a bit of cataloging, book repair, filing, whatever. It's small but it's something to do.

I had a job interview the other day at a local college as a records clerk/counselor/something. It's one of the few I've had since I've been here, and actually went really really well. I dread job interviews. They usually go horribly, I can never think of good answers, and I always leave feeling completely stupid. This however, left me feeling brilliant. There were six people there to interview me (overkill? I think so...), which was ridiculously intimidating, but I managed to control my nervous shaking and present a calm exterior and give great answers to all the questions. I even made them laugh. It was wonderful. The thing is, I haven't heard back yet. It's been almost two weeks now. They warned that it would take a while, but I can't help but be nervous. They had 200 applicants, about 50 of whom had Master's degrees already. I suspect the only reason I got an interview was because I (apparently) know one of the administrators (I didn't even realize this until after I submitted the application, and to be honest, I didn't even remember applying or what in the world the job was when they called to set up the interview) but anyways, still waiting to hear back on that. It would really be ideal. I think that it would be similar in a lot of ways to working at IS. Only, obviously, it would pay much more.

BUT. Right now, I'm really unsure whether I even want this job or not. I have no idea what I would say if they called me tomorrow (which they won't because it's a Saturday) and offered me the job. Why? Because I've already been offered a paid internship this summer at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (heavens, what a mouthful) library. It's not really in the area I want to go into, but it's in an area of librarianship that is higher paying, and probably easier to get into. And, all that aside, it's experience (which I don't have, but need) and it pays real money (which I don't have, but need). If I took a full-time job right now, there is no way I could take ten weeks off this summer to live in West Virginia. Also, I've recently been to a national lab. And who mostly works in labs? Men. Attractive ones. So. Full-time job, temporary security, or no full-time job, start substitute teaching next week, and make myself more valuable to future employers. Which is more important. I have no idea. Please tell me.

So this post basically started off stupid, became inane, and just got really long.

Guess what? Spring break is next week. I HAVE A SPRING BREAK. Take that, world.

So I was rereading an old post and I said I would post a video of Madea's crazy version of the bible when I found one. Well I found on, but it's not actually from the movie ("I can do bad all by myself") but from a play. So it's not quite as good, but I love the flow from story to story. watch it here!

Movie update!

Movies I've watched recently:


I don't think I've seen a more utterly delightful movie in recent years. It was (to list a few things) hilarious, heart-breaking, heart-felt, real, wonderful, hopeful, and a really really good use of my time. I recommend it to everyone I know, because I know that you will love it. Think Juno but not disgusting and way more positive. Not that Juno wasn't positive, because it had its moments, but mostly it was kind of meh. Definitely definitely watch Whip It



I'm still not entirely sure what to say about this movie. Not that I don't like it, because I do. A lot. I love it actually. But (a warning) it's not at all a piece of carefree period fluff. Bright Star tells the story of famous Romantic poet John Keats, and his fiance, Fanny Brawne. They meet when Keats is renting rooms from a Brawne family friend, and her concern for his sick brother draws them together. Their relationship anchors her, giving weight and importance to a life obsessed with fashion and flirting. It does the same for him, lifting him from a deep depression, and fueling not only his writing, but his will to live. He, unfortunately, is deep in debt and has no income to speak of, and so the two are unable to marry. He and others try to push Fanny to move on and find someone else, but she refuses to do so. They wait for three years, he contracts tuberculosis, travels to Italy for the warmer climate at the urging of his friends, and dies alone. This is not an unfamiliar story, but the way it's told is very unusual. There is nothing revolutionary about this film, what makes it exceptional is the painstaking craftsmanship that went into making it. John Keats and Fanny Brawne are not stereotypical characters locked in an ill-fated romance working towards a storybook ending. You come to know them intimately, you see them change, you know their backstory, you understand the outside forces acting on them, and you are allowed to know them in a way which few films permit. This understanding and empathy with them makes their story more personal and more powerful. It is careful, quiet, and utterly beautiful.



FAME (picture malfunction...I'm too lazy to replace it.)
It was a movie about a performing arts high school. Nothing that new or original. It was better then the first one, if only for the fact that this was rated PG while the original was R. Yeah, I'll download some of the songs, but I don't think I'll ever watch it again. It was fluff and fulfilled my entertainment needs at the time.




First of all, what a creepy poster. Second of all, Bruce Willis' surrogate looks really creepy. Lastly, it was better than Push but not as good as, say, the first Transformers. So good but not great. What I found most interesting was the commentary on how technology changes people's lives. The society in this movie had become completely insular. They stayed at home all the time, and never left as themselves. I think we see a measure of that today with the modern conveniences we enjoy. The point- please leave your house at least once a day, and don't ever have more aquaintances or friends online than you have in real life.

And yes, I just turned that silly movie ino a warning on how not to live your life. So there.




Meh. Some thoughts:
1. Adam Rodriguez is a VERY attractive man
2. Gladys Knight!!!
3. Taraji P. Henson was not anywhere near as good as I expected her to be (straight off of winning an Oscar for a 10-minute performance and all). But that's mostly the script's fault.
4. Madea gives the BEST summary of the bible I have ever heard. When I find a good clip, I'll post it.
5. Other than those things, this movie is complete crap. Good intentions poorly realized.
6. Did I mention Adam Rodriguez? 'Cause wow.



ALL ABOUT STEVE
Sandra Bullock is too old to play this character. I'm sorry, I really like her, but it's true. She just is. That being said, she's kind of sweet and sad (when she's not creepy and over-trusting). Probably don't waste your time, it's a little heavy on the awkward moments and just not that satisfying to watch. And her boots, the red boots she wears constantly, look like she bought them at a fetish shop an a seedy side street in downtown L.A. Not cute.




I'm really glad I decided to write this if only so that I could find this poster. I like it that much. Yes, this just started playing at the dollar theater in Chattanooga. Which, let me complain for a moment, is not actually a dollar theater, but a "$3 for matinees and heaven only knows how much for an evening" theater. Anyways, it was just as good as the first time. The scene in the cave, when Dumbledore creates the giant swirling fire hurricane is...awesome. That is all.

Confessions of a Shopaholic= Ridiculous and wonderful.
The International= Actually quite good- better than similar movies I've seen recently.

Kristin, come back to work.

Is it wrong that I could care less about politics right now? I know it is, I shouldn't even ask. But there are so many things that are more immediate and pressing at this point in my life. So yes, judge me for being apathetic. I'll be an activist tomorrow.