Started playing World of Warcraft again this weekend. Stef had been playing DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) with our friend Jeremy for the last several months. They heard another old friend of ours, Rob, had started playing WoW again, so they decided to play again too. I've always liked WoW, so I reactivated my account as well.
Had a fun time this weekend. We played all Saturday night and then a few hours Sunday afternoon. There's a been some changes since we last played (which appears to have been about a year or so ago. No new expansion, but a few new dungeons, plus a change on pick up groups (PUGs), which is definitely an improvement from before. Now, instead of being limited to one's own server, you can get into a queue for a random dungeon with a group from any server, or get a person to complete your group from any server. So, since our group was only 4 this weekend, we put in to get a 5th for several dungeons, which worked out well most of the time. There was only one dungeon that we tried to do that didn't work out with the 5th we got, we really just needed a different class for that particular dungeon, which you don't really get to choose, the class or the dungeon. You only get to choose from Tank, Healer and Damage, which can be quite different in actual production. Most of the time, whatever you get will work, but some certain dungeons really require the right mix of classes to succeed.
Naturally, since we last played, there's been another set of "ultimate" equipment to strive for. Where we once had the top armor, we're now back at the bottom of the next totem pole. That's what the new dungeons are for. I think they also made some changes to some of the achievement requirements, because we got several achievements during the dungeons we did, that we struggled and failed to get after many attempts before.
Its nice to see that the game comes up with new things to do. We're hoping to get another friend to play again to be our regular 5th. Its always more fun to do things with people you know. I'm not sure how long we'll play this time, I know that we've got Stef's family coming in at the end of July and through most of August, so I'm guessing we won't be playing much during that time.
The only downside to playing again is that it cuts into the time I was going to spend this summer catching up on watching some movies and TV shows of which I've got on DVD but haven't yet seen. I was trying to clear a bit of backlog before the fall shows start (although there's less I'll be watching this fall too). But social interaction is a good thing, so I'll just enjoy it for now. At least I don't have to spend as much solo time doing daily quests and faction grinding as before, and I'm almost maxed on my profession skills. So mostly I'll only be playing when our friends are on, so it won't be quite the time consuming things as before. Plus, we both have to spend some time with our kids. They're not plugged in just yet.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
French Work
I read an article the other day about France raising its retirement age from 60 to 62 in order to help maintain its budget, afford its services. I can understand that, since we have the same problem in America. I just had to both laugh and shake my head at some of the comments to this article. People that didn't understand why the French were protesting the raise, complaining that French workers don't work hard like Americans, that people have to keep working into their 70s and 80s or otherwise they get bored, etc. Some laughed that the French planned more protests, but only after the August vacation season.
People forget that the French live longer than most Americans and yet they still are able to afford pretty good retirement benefits, plus the ongoing health care, shorter work days and long vacations. The French have learned that work isn't the "end all, be all" of everyone. Sure, some people will always want to work for their entire lives, but that doesn't mean that those that don't are wrong. Most people can enjoy their work and still have other things to do outside of work. That doesn't mean they just "collect a paycheck." The French know that to enjoy life, you have to experience more of it than just your cubicle.
You think that Americans wouldn't be healthier and happier if we had more time to exercise, buy and cook fresh food, enjoy time with our families, educate ourselves after your college years are done? People always marvel at how the French live longer despite drinking wine every day and eating rich foods. Perhaps its the lack of stress and ulcers because they don't have to put in 60 hour work weeks 50 weeks a year. They get a good amount of vacation time to relax and recharge. They can go home and enjoy a nice meal with their families without thinking that they have to go back to work immediately afterwards. They don't have to worry about being taken care of when their retire, or being able to pay to see a doctor when they're sick, or having to choose between medicine and food.
Its really amazing how a pleasant work environment can change one's attitude, even about work. My last job was incredibly stressful. My boss was a micro-manager, always criticizing, always cutting my billable hours yet yelling at me because I wasn't billing enough, and was stingy in providing work to boot. He'd complain if I was 5 minutes "late" to work or left before 6pm even though he knew I had to pick up my kids at 6pm. At that job, I'd bristle over every little .10 that I wasn't allowed to bill for whatever reason, or when I had to take work home.
At my current job, my boss gives me a long reign to work as I see fit. He doesn't criticize every little thing (some things, yes, but not every thing). I come and go as I need. I bill for what I do and he rarely, if ever, cuts my time. Sometimes, pretty rarely, a client will complain and he'll compromise, but he sticks up for the work I've done and the time I've spent. He only compromise because its good business. I don't mind taking work home. I don't mind the occasional times that I spend more time and effort doing a project that I was authorized to bill and therefore cut my own time. For the most part, I take what days off I want or need.
Ok, there is one partner, not my direct boss, with whom billable hours, vacation/sick/family time is more of an issue, so I have to juggle that. But I'm (mostly) better able to handle the stress from that partner because my boss isn't so stress-inducing. So its not quite as good as working in France, but its far better than most of my prior jobs.
Its like my secretary. I don't really mind the time she needs to take off for family and such. I just wish she was a better worker when she was here. But because she's not that good a worker, sometimes I get annoyed at her time off. I like to think that my boss doesn't mind the times I not in the office because he knows I'm doing good work and a lot of the time, I'm doing work at home to make it up. The less stress makes me a better worker.
Perhaps if more businesses treated their employees better, paid more, gave more sick/vacation time, provided more respect, the employees would work so much harder and better that these extra benefits wouldn't hurt the bottom line. Plus they'd have healthier, happier employees to boot.
Even so, not everyone is living to work. Some people still like to enjoy life outside the office. So just because some people want to retire at 60 shouldn't mean that their lazy or living off other hard working people. There's so much more to see and do and learn, its no life to be cooped up forever.
People forget that the French live longer than most Americans and yet they still are able to afford pretty good retirement benefits, plus the ongoing health care, shorter work days and long vacations. The French have learned that work isn't the "end all, be all" of everyone. Sure, some people will always want to work for their entire lives, but that doesn't mean that those that don't are wrong. Most people can enjoy their work and still have other things to do outside of work. That doesn't mean they just "collect a paycheck." The French know that to enjoy life, you have to experience more of it than just your cubicle.
You think that Americans wouldn't be healthier and happier if we had more time to exercise, buy and cook fresh food, enjoy time with our families, educate ourselves after your college years are done? People always marvel at how the French live longer despite drinking wine every day and eating rich foods. Perhaps its the lack of stress and ulcers because they don't have to put in 60 hour work weeks 50 weeks a year. They get a good amount of vacation time to relax and recharge. They can go home and enjoy a nice meal with their families without thinking that they have to go back to work immediately afterwards. They don't have to worry about being taken care of when their retire, or being able to pay to see a doctor when they're sick, or having to choose between medicine and food.
Its really amazing how a pleasant work environment can change one's attitude, even about work. My last job was incredibly stressful. My boss was a micro-manager, always criticizing, always cutting my billable hours yet yelling at me because I wasn't billing enough, and was stingy in providing work to boot. He'd complain if I was 5 minutes "late" to work or left before 6pm even though he knew I had to pick up my kids at 6pm. At that job, I'd bristle over every little .10 that I wasn't allowed to bill for whatever reason, or when I had to take work home.
At my current job, my boss gives me a long reign to work as I see fit. He doesn't criticize every little thing (some things, yes, but not every thing). I come and go as I need. I bill for what I do and he rarely, if ever, cuts my time. Sometimes, pretty rarely, a client will complain and he'll compromise, but he sticks up for the work I've done and the time I've spent. He only compromise because its good business. I don't mind taking work home. I don't mind the occasional times that I spend more time and effort doing a project that I was authorized to bill and therefore cut my own time. For the most part, I take what days off I want or need.
Ok, there is one partner, not my direct boss, with whom billable hours, vacation/sick/family time is more of an issue, so I have to juggle that. But I'm (mostly) better able to handle the stress from that partner because my boss isn't so stress-inducing. So its not quite as good as working in France, but its far better than most of my prior jobs.
Its like my secretary. I don't really mind the time she needs to take off for family and such. I just wish she was a better worker when she was here. But because she's not that good a worker, sometimes I get annoyed at her time off. I like to think that my boss doesn't mind the times I not in the office because he knows I'm doing good work and a lot of the time, I'm doing work at home to make it up. The less stress makes me a better worker.
Perhaps if more businesses treated their employees better, paid more, gave more sick/vacation time, provided more respect, the employees would work so much harder and better that these extra benefits wouldn't hurt the bottom line. Plus they'd have healthier, happier employees to boot.
Even so, not everyone is living to work. Some people still like to enjoy life outside the office. So just because some people want to retire at 60 shouldn't mean that their lazy or living off other hard working people. There's so much more to see and do and learn, its no life to be cooped up forever.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Movies 2
Well, I wasn't going to refresh this topic so soon, but I've recently seen some real gems through my DVR so had to comment.
The Reader - This definitely makes you think, and certainly its the first time (I think) that a Nazi war criminal was portrayed in a sympathetic light. I say sympathetic only because this war criminal was so far down the food chain, as it were, that it shows how ordinary people can end up getting sucked into something they don't understand and then feel powerless to get out. Its also interesting that the lead character felt more shame by her illiteracy than her participation as a guard at a death camp. I understand the movie is based on a novel, which I may pick up to read to see if it provides further details about the thought processes of the two main characters. Why did Hanna testify as she did at the trial, admitting to everything, when her co-defendants had clearly agreed to jointly deny it all? Had Hanna followed suit, the outcome would likely have been much different, so why did she not? Why did Michael choose not to speak with Hanna and convince her to acknowledge her illiteracy, knowing the likely devastating affect her silence would have on the trial outcome? Lots of questions left unanswered.
War, Inc. - Its movies like this one (along with Grosse Pointe Blank) which make me love John (and Joan) Cusack and can forgive his schlop films like 2012 (if he has to do those kind of 'paycheck' type roles in order to produce an intelligent comedy like this, I'll accept it). While not a sequel to Grosse Pointe, clearly along the same vein. I had thought that this movie would have been kinda like the Nick Cage "War" movie, but it was completely different. It is hilarious, especially in its subtleties (references to "former VP" who works for a defense contractor, haha, we know who that's about - as well as who wrote the book in the gift bag). And I never would have guessed that Hillary Duff could really act. I had no idea it was her until the end credits. I liked this movie so much, I'll probably add it to my buy on DVD list (used, of course - new price for movies is ridiculous).
Max Payne - Ok, a dud. Such a dud, I admit that I didn't even finish it. Hard to follow and a bit too much violence, even for me. Maybe it got better, but I couldn't get through half.
Capitalism - A Love Story - Yeah, more left-wing political propoganda from Michael Moore. Still, he makes some good points. I definitely liked the parallels at the beginning between ancient Rome and present day USA, kindof scary and something worth considering. I also liked the additional info on TARP, which frankly I didn't know (yeah, I need to read more). I thought it was right to point out that the source of the US' current economic crises really had its origins back with Ronnie Regan and his deregulation crusade. Seriously, people are really upset that Obama couldn't fix the problems that have been growing since the 80s, only coming to fruition and collapse now, 20 years later, in less than 2 years and that's the reason they want to give the country back to the right-wing nut jobs in the Tea Party? Give the man a chance people! As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day, and the rebuilding of the civilization took a bit longer after its collapse. He's working towards solutions, but it takes time. He also has it a hell of a lot harder than say Roosevelt or Johnson, who didn't have to contend with the significant partisanship that exists today. Not to mention the greed that certain financial industries have grown to expect and do their damnedest to maintain. I seriously hope MM does a movie on the Tea Party next.
Shrek IV - Wow, a new movie. I took the girls to see this after Cami's Pre-K graduation (and it starts). Cute story, despite a lot of plot holes. The 3D stuff was kindof cool, though I seriously don't want to see it in Every. Single. Movie., the outrageous price notwithstanding (and it was outrageous). Better than III, but still not as good as I or even II. Unless you have kids that have to see it, wait for the DVD.
The Reader - This definitely makes you think, and certainly its the first time (I think) that a Nazi war criminal was portrayed in a sympathetic light. I say sympathetic only because this war criminal was so far down the food chain, as it were, that it shows how ordinary people can end up getting sucked into something they don't understand and then feel powerless to get out. Its also interesting that the lead character felt more shame by her illiteracy than her participation as a guard at a death camp. I understand the movie is based on a novel, which I may pick up to read to see if it provides further details about the thought processes of the two main characters. Why did Hanna testify as she did at the trial, admitting to everything, when her co-defendants had clearly agreed to jointly deny it all? Had Hanna followed suit, the outcome would likely have been much different, so why did she not? Why did Michael choose not to speak with Hanna and convince her to acknowledge her illiteracy, knowing the likely devastating affect her silence would have on the trial outcome? Lots of questions left unanswered.
War, Inc. - Its movies like this one (along with Grosse Pointe Blank) which make me love John (and Joan) Cusack and can forgive his schlop films like 2012 (if he has to do those kind of 'paycheck' type roles in order to produce an intelligent comedy like this, I'll accept it). While not a sequel to Grosse Pointe, clearly along the same vein. I had thought that this movie would have been kinda like the Nick Cage "War" movie, but it was completely different. It is hilarious, especially in its subtleties (references to "former VP" who works for a defense contractor, haha, we know who that's about - as well as who wrote the book in the gift bag). And I never would have guessed that Hillary Duff could really act. I had no idea it was her until the end credits. I liked this movie so much, I'll probably add it to my buy on DVD list (used, of course - new price for movies is ridiculous).
Max Payne - Ok, a dud. Such a dud, I admit that I didn't even finish it. Hard to follow and a bit too much violence, even for me. Maybe it got better, but I couldn't get through half.
Capitalism - A Love Story - Yeah, more left-wing political propoganda from Michael Moore. Still, he makes some good points. I definitely liked the parallels at the beginning between ancient Rome and present day USA, kindof scary and something worth considering. I also liked the additional info on TARP, which frankly I didn't know (yeah, I need to read more). I thought it was right to point out that the source of the US' current economic crises really had its origins back with Ronnie Regan and his deregulation crusade. Seriously, people are really upset that Obama couldn't fix the problems that have been growing since the 80s, only coming to fruition and collapse now, 20 years later, in less than 2 years and that's the reason they want to give the country back to the right-wing nut jobs in the Tea Party? Give the man a chance people! As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day, and the rebuilding of the civilization took a bit longer after its collapse. He's working towards solutions, but it takes time. He also has it a hell of a lot harder than say Roosevelt or Johnson, who didn't have to contend with the significant partisanship that exists today. Not to mention the greed that certain financial industries have grown to expect and do their damnedest to maintain. I seriously hope MM does a movie on the Tea Party next.
Shrek IV - Wow, a new movie. I took the girls to see this after Cami's Pre-K graduation (and it starts). Cute story, despite a lot of plot holes. The 3D stuff was kindof cool, though I seriously don't want to see it in Every. Single. Movie., the outrageous price notwithstanding (and it was outrageous). Better than III, but still not as good as I or even II. Unless you have kids that have to see it, wait for the DVD.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Weighty Matters
I was reading an article today about a T-shirt offered by clothing store with "Eat Less" written on it and how people are all up in arms about it. Or at least some are, some think there's no problem with such a message because America is so fat. One commenter starts talking about how people in other countries are thin because they eat less, and uses France as an example.
Well, based on actual experience, I can tell you that people in France do not, in general, "eat less" than in America (at least in general, there are always exceptions). Their meals are usually several courses. Appetizers, entrees, cheese and desert, all with bread and wine. Believe me, they eat at least as much as Americans, at least at meals.
But the French do eat differently. People are thinner in France for several reasons.
1. They work less hours a day and have more time to buy/cook fresh food. Part of this is also because they generally don't eat dinner until at least 7pm, sometimes as late as 8pm. Their meals then last a couple of hours. Kids don't spend time after dinner watching TV. They eat dinner, then go to bed. Homework? Well, that's another topic, but suffice it to say that French kids go to school until 5pm four days a week (half day one day a week) and overall have less homework because they are doing more work in school. So less time is needed for 'homework.'
2. They have more vacation time and are therefore less stressed and thus eat less to relieve said stress. Stress causes a lot of overeating. French workers are treated better and have a lot less work induced stress.
3. They're food is not made with HFCS. In fact, they have significantly less processed food. I know some people say that HFCS is no worse than sugar, and maybe that's true. But the French buy much less pre-made food so they have control over whether sugar is even going into the recipe. They don't need HFCS in their bread for preservatives, they buy fresh bread daily so only the sugar needed for the yeast reaction is sufficient. Look at ingredients, you'd be amazed at how difficult it is to buy almost anything without HFCS.
4. They eat out a lot less because restaurants are more expensive, because they include 20% tip in the price of the food in order give the wait staff a living wage (and when they do eat out, the portions are significantly smaller). My in-laws love eating out in America because its so cheap (yeah, this is why the French are famous for cheap tipping) and they can order one meal to split between them because the portions are so big. They don't have "doggie bags" in France.
5. They walk/bike more because their roads are smaller and not conducive to driving everywhere. At least if one is living in a city, one doesn't need a car at all in France. Its like living in NYC (and maybe a few other metropolitans)
6. They do not multi-task while eating (such as reading or watching TV). They enjoy the company of people they are eating with and spend the time talking. Thus, their meals last a lot longer (2 hour lunch is quite common) and people enjoy the food more. They don't "wolf down" their food. Similarly, they never eat while walking, driving, etc. They eat sitting down, at a table, almost always with another person.
7. They snack significantly less, probably because their meals last longer. No need for that 10pm 'snack' when you just finished dinner 30 minutes ago.
8. They eat a much lighter breakfast. Sometimes I think the American idea of a "big breakfast" is a contributing factor to obesity. It was fine for when one lived on a farm and needed to burn a lot of calories early in the day. But a normal person who is just going to sit in an office doesn't need a breakfast of pancakes, eggs, bacon, etc. You know that they call "Continental breakfast"? The roll, coffee, juice? Well, that's why its called that, because that's what you eat in 'continental Europe' for breakfast. Kids are really the only people in France that eat more (and only a little bit more at that) than a roll or croissant for breakfast.
9. More French still smoke. This is probably the only negative. However, even those that don't smoke are significantly thinner overall.
We're trying to incorporate at least some of these habits at our home. Its hard for me to break my habit of reading while eating. It will be easier as the kids get older and we use dinner time to talk more. As it is, we force the kids to turn off the TV during dinner time. Even if they are not watching it, if they can hear it, its distracting, and they eat faster.
I'm trying to buy and cook fresh food, buy foods with no HFCS. Its hard because I work much longer than most French. Again, when the kids are older and can help more, I hope it will be easier. In the meantime, I go to the farmers market once a week for fruits and veggies, they last longer and taste better than those in the grocery store (and the price difference is negligible, some are cheaper, some are not, it works out about the same).
We eat out less than before, although that's mostly an economic factor. When we do eat out, I almost always try to order something to take half home for a lunch. If we have to put up with such large portions, I'm going to at least try and split it up for two meals.
We try to go out walking/biking every day, at least when its not too hot or cold. This is also primarily when its still light out after work. Once Elise is old enough to bike too, we can even do some longer trips.
I love our vacations in France. I never gain weight there, even with some of the heavy food. In fact, I usually drop a few pounds and never feel hungry. So its not at all about 'eating less,' its how you eat that matters.
Well, based on actual experience, I can tell you that people in France do not, in general, "eat less" than in America (at least in general, there are always exceptions). Their meals are usually several courses. Appetizers, entrees, cheese and desert, all with bread and wine. Believe me, they eat at least as much as Americans, at least at meals.
But the French do eat differently. People are thinner in France for several reasons.
1. They work less hours a day and have more time to buy/cook fresh food. Part of this is also because they generally don't eat dinner until at least 7pm, sometimes as late as 8pm. Their meals then last a couple of hours. Kids don't spend time after dinner watching TV. They eat dinner, then go to bed. Homework? Well, that's another topic, but suffice it to say that French kids go to school until 5pm four days a week (half day one day a week) and overall have less homework because they are doing more work in school. So less time is needed for 'homework.'
2. They have more vacation time and are therefore less stressed and thus eat less to relieve said stress. Stress causes a lot of overeating. French workers are treated better and have a lot less work induced stress.
3. They're food is not made with HFCS. In fact, they have significantly less processed food. I know some people say that HFCS is no worse than sugar, and maybe that's true. But the French buy much less pre-made food so they have control over whether sugar is even going into the recipe. They don't need HFCS in their bread for preservatives, they buy fresh bread daily so only the sugar needed for the yeast reaction is sufficient. Look at ingredients, you'd be amazed at how difficult it is to buy almost anything without HFCS.
4. They eat out a lot less because restaurants are more expensive, because they include 20% tip in the price of the food in order give the wait staff a living wage (and when they do eat out, the portions are significantly smaller). My in-laws love eating out in America because its so cheap (yeah, this is why the French are famous for cheap tipping) and they can order one meal to split between them because the portions are so big. They don't have "doggie bags" in France.
5. They walk/bike more because their roads are smaller and not conducive to driving everywhere. At least if one is living in a city, one doesn't need a car at all in France. Its like living in NYC (and maybe a few other metropolitans)
6. They do not multi-task while eating (such as reading or watching TV). They enjoy the company of people they are eating with and spend the time talking. Thus, their meals last a lot longer (2 hour lunch is quite common) and people enjoy the food more. They don't "wolf down" their food. Similarly, they never eat while walking, driving, etc. They eat sitting down, at a table, almost always with another person.
7. They snack significantly less, probably because their meals last longer. No need for that 10pm 'snack' when you just finished dinner 30 minutes ago.
8. They eat a much lighter breakfast. Sometimes I think the American idea of a "big breakfast" is a contributing factor to obesity. It was fine for when one lived on a farm and needed to burn a lot of calories early in the day. But a normal person who is just going to sit in an office doesn't need a breakfast of pancakes, eggs, bacon, etc. You know that they call "Continental breakfast"? The roll, coffee, juice? Well, that's why its called that, because that's what you eat in 'continental Europe' for breakfast. Kids are really the only people in France that eat more (and only a little bit more at that) than a roll or croissant for breakfast.
9. More French still smoke. This is probably the only negative. However, even those that don't smoke are significantly thinner overall.
We're trying to incorporate at least some of these habits at our home. Its hard for me to break my habit of reading while eating. It will be easier as the kids get older and we use dinner time to talk more. As it is, we force the kids to turn off the TV during dinner time. Even if they are not watching it, if they can hear it, its distracting, and they eat faster.
I'm trying to buy and cook fresh food, buy foods with no HFCS. Its hard because I work much longer than most French. Again, when the kids are older and can help more, I hope it will be easier. In the meantime, I go to the farmers market once a week for fruits and veggies, they last longer and taste better than those in the grocery store (and the price difference is negligible, some are cheaper, some are not, it works out about the same).
We eat out less than before, although that's mostly an economic factor. When we do eat out, I almost always try to order something to take half home for a lunch. If we have to put up with such large portions, I'm going to at least try and split it up for two meals.
We try to go out walking/biking every day, at least when its not too hot or cold. This is also primarily when its still light out after work. Once Elise is old enough to bike too, we can even do some longer trips.
I love our vacations in France. I never gain weight there, even with some of the heavy food. In fact, I usually drop a few pounds and never feel hungry. So its not at all about 'eating less,' its how you eat that matters.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Movie Review
Like my prior book review, this post will sum up some thoughts I had on movies recently seen. Most are older movies that I finally got around to seeing because they were on cable and I DVR'd them. We don't get out to the theater too much because of the kids and price. We can't really take the kids to most movies we'd like to see and its expensive to not only go to the theater (even with discount tickets - although that helps), but also for the babysitter. But the kids are getting older, so at least we can take them to some kids movies now. Shrek is a definite possibility.
So here's what I've seen recently, well mostly over the past long weekend. I'll try not to divulge too many spoilers:
Revolutionary Road: About a husband/wife in their late 20s living in suburbia Connecticut in the 1950s who are unhappy with their lives. They decide to move to Paris and switch roles (she will now work), but circumstances prevent this decision from occurring with unhappy results. I can see why this movie was very controversial, since it involves pro-life/pro-choice issues, but also the roles in which men and women played, especially during that time. Women were pretty much forced into two roles: married with children, or working single. With the production of the Pill and other better forms of birth control, women finally had the choice to marry, but delay childbirth, which I believe helped a lot of women who weren't yet ready to have kids, wanted a career first. I think that would have solved April's problem. She was definitely unhappy being forced into the mother role before she wanted it, if she ever wanted it. At least moving to Paris would have allowed her some time to have a career, something outside the home. I can respect and understand April's desires and am happy that I at least got to live in a time where I could have my career first and now enjoy being a mother. Heck, I'd give up working now and just be a full time mom if we could afford it. So I sympathize mostly with April in this movie, even though she made a bad decision in the end.
W.: I'll say one thing for this movie, my opinion of GWB actually improved. I know he was still never the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least he was sincere in his beliefs, in realizing that he had to give up alcohol and get his life in order, in finding what he wanted to do as opposed to what his family wanted him to do, in at least trying to be a good President. Its really almost a shame that he got played by others like Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney, who had their own best interests at heart rather than the country's. Too bad he didn't listen better to Powell (who I think also got played a bit). I still don't like that his 'born again' nature led this country into such a division, between those that still want separation of church and state and those that obviously want a state religion. And I really dislike how his very nature made people of this country prefer a president "who one could have a beer with" rather than someone who got into Harvard on his own merits and graduated at the top of his class. I just hope that for those that see this movie and really understand it, realize that we need to elect people that can stand on their own, and not just be surrounded by yes-men and yes-women (yeah you Conde - I swear the administration went looking for a black yes-woman just so they could point to how diverse they were) and be run by those that use the good nature of others for their own selfish reasons.
The Hangover: - So this was supposed to be the 'breakout' comedy a summer or two ago, one that everyone underestimated, but turned into a blockbuster. Yeah, I don't get it. It was ok, fine, some good parts I did laugh at. But I fail to see why this was huge. The guy on the roof couldn't yell to get someone's attention, especially when people were getting the mattress off the spire? They really shared a back seat with the tiger (in getting him to the hotel) and how did they get him up to the room? They really couldn't show up to the wedding and taken another 15 minutes to shower? How they'd get the Chinese guy in the trunk naked anyway while drunk and high if they guy could take them out when they were sober? And the guy with the girlfriend back home was very unrealistic, I can't even imagine why a guy would stay with a woman like that, let alone want to marry her. So yeah, the movie was cute, but I didn't think it lived up to its reputation.
Benjamin Button - Another movie that while I thought was ok, didn't live up to the hype. Sure it was cool to see the guy age backwards, as unrealistic as that could be (I understand it was supposed to be akin to Forest Gump, but that was at least in the realm of possibility) and see how he interacted with people who didn't realize his 'true' age. But it was so contrived, and it had to be, that it was hard to really enjoy it.
The Incredible Hulk - Edward Norton edition. Not a complete remake of the origin story, which at least was a nice change of pace. A sequel without an official prequel, presuming we knew the origin story (either that or Eric Bana didn't/couldn't/wasn't asked to do the sequel). Either way, I liked Norton in the role, although this was mostly a special effects laden movie and the "villain" hulk pretty obvious from the beginning. I loved seeing Phil from Modern Family. But the story was pretty thin.
Taking Woodstock - This was a pretty cool movie, a behind the scenes look at how Woodstock came to be. Yeah, would have liked more music, but the story was cool. I read later how the main protagonist was really in his mid-30s, whereas in the movie he looks to be like 22. It definitely came off better in the movie how he allowed himself to be pushed around by his parents, although he appeared to be making much more mature decisions over the other parts of his life that belied how young he looked. It gave me some flashbacks to when I went to the US Festival in CA back in 83, with driving there, parking a long ways away, riding a truck, bus and walking there, how big it was. Of course, wasn't quite the extent of drugs (or at least none that I took outside a little bit of pot - I was driving). Quite the experience, I'm sure Woodstock was even moreso, especially since it lasted several days.
Robin Hood - Russell Crowe edition. A current movie! Went to this one last week when we went out for our anniversary. Our other choice was Iron Man 2, but Steph apparently never watched the DVD for the first movie (I could have sworn we watched it together, but maybe not). Still, not bad. Not as campy as the Kevin Costner movie (ok, I only missed Alan Rickman), and better dramatic wise and realism wise. Naturally took liberties with history, but don't they all, when you're dealing with a bit of a mythological or at least legendary person. I liked finally seeing a portrayal of Eleanor d'Aquitane and acknowledging that she had a pretty significant role during that time period. Also a lot more french than normally seen in these movies, which was also much more realistic. It could have used more french even, but then people would think they were seeing a foreign film. I was happy to understand a fair amount of the french, even without the subtitles. My main criticism, as many have pointed out, is the ages of the characters. Especially for that time frame, its totally unrealistic to have Robin Hood played by a 45 year old man. Crowe did a decent enough job at it, but definitely if they're going to do a sequel, better do so quick.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall - I keep hearing how "good" Judd Apatow movies are and yet every time I see one I have to wonder who thinks this? I guess they appeal to a certain segment of the population, maybe college age kids and maybe I would have liked this movie better if I was 20 years younger. I was bored throughout most of the movie and kept my finger on the fast forward button. I do have to say that I thought I had seen several of the actors in other things, but checking IMDb, nope. I guess these movies saturate the media quite well.
So here's what I've seen recently, well mostly over the past long weekend. I'll try not to divulge too many spoilers:
Revolutionary Road: About a husband/wife in their late 20s living in suburbia Connecticut in the 1950s who are unhappy with their lives. They decide to move to Paris and switch roles (she will now work), but circumstances prevent this decision from occurring with unhappy results. I can see why this movie was very controversial, since it involves pro-life/pro-choice issues, but also the roles in which men and women played, especially during that time. Women were pretty much forced into two roles: married with children, or working single. With the production of the Pill and other better forms of birth control, women finally had the choice to marry, but delay childbirth, which I believe helped a lot of women who weren't yet ready to have kids, wanted a career first. I think that would have solved April's problem. She was definitely unhappy being forced into the mother role before she wanted it, if she ever wanted it. At least moving to Paris would have allowed her some time to have a career, something outside the home. I can respect and understand April's desires and am happy that I at least got to live in a time where I could have my career first and now enjoy being a mother. Heck, I'd give up working now and just be a full time mom if we could afford it. So I sympathize mostly with April in this movie, even though she made a bad decision in the end.
W.: I'll say one thing for this movie, my opinion of GWB actually improved. I know he was still never the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least he was sincere in his beliefs, in realizing that he had to give up alcohol and get his life in order, in finding what he wanted to do as opposed to what his family wanted him to do, in at least trying to be a good President. Its really almost a shame that he got played by others like Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney, who had their own best interests at heart rather than the country's. Too bad he didn't listen better to Powell (who I think also got played a bit). I still don't like that his 'born again' nature led this country into such a division, between those that still want separation of church and state and those that obviously want a state religion. And I really dislike how his very nature made people of this country prefer a president "who one could have a beer with" rather than someone who got into Harvard on his own merits and graduated at the top of his class. I just hope that for those that see this movie and really understand it, realize that we need to elect people that can stand on their own, and not just be surrounded by yes-men and yes-women (yeah you Conde - I swear the administration went looking for a black yes-woman just so they could point to how diverse they were) and be run by those that use the good nature of others for their own selfish reasons.
The Hangover: - So this was supposed to be the 'breakout' comedy a summer or two ago, one that everyone underestimated, but turned into a blockbuster. Yeah, I don't get it. It was ok, fine, some good parts I did laugh at. But I fail to see why this was huge. The guy on the roof couldn't yell to get someone's attention, especially when people were getting the mattress off the spire? They really shared a back seat with the tiger (in getting him to the hotel) and how did they get him up to the room? They really couldn't show up to the wedding and taken another 15 minutes to shower? How they'd get the Chinese guy in the trunk naked anyway while drunk and high if they guy could take them out when they were sober? And the guy with the girlfriend back home was very unrealistic, I can't even imagine why a guy would stay with a woman like that, let alone want to marry her. So yeah, the movie was cute, but I didn't think it lived up to its reputation.
Benjamin Button - Another movie that while I thought was ok, didn't live up to the hype. Sure it was cool to see the guy age backwards, as unrealistic as that could be (I understand it was supposed to be akin to Forest Gump, but that was at least in the realm of possibility) and see how he interacted with people who didn't realize his 'true' age. But it was so contrived, and it had to be, that it was hard to really enjoy it.
The Incredible Hulk - Edward Norton edition. Not a complete remake of the origin story, which at least was a nice change of pace. A sequel without an official prequel, presuming we knew the origin story (either that or Eric Bana didn't/couldn't/wasn't asked to do the sequel). Either way, I liked Norton in the role, although this was mostly a special effects laden movie and the "villain" hulk pretty obvious from the beginning. I loved seeing Phil from Modern Family. But the story was pretty thin.
Taking Woodstock - This was a pretty cool movie, a behind the scenes look at how Woodstock came to be. Yeah, would have liked more music, but the story was cool. I read later how the main protagonist was really in his mid-30s, whereas in the movie he looks to be like 22. It definitely came off better in the movie how he allowed himself to be pushed around by his parents, although he appeared to be making much more mature decisions over the other parts of his life that belied how young he looked. It gave me some flashbacks to when I went to the US Festival in CA back in 83, with driving there, parking a long ways away, riding a truck, bus and walking there, how big it was. Of course, wasn't quite the extent of drugs (or at least none that I took outside a little bit of pot - I was driving). Quite the experience, I'm sure Woodstock was even moreso, especially since it lasted several days.
Robin Hood - Russell Crowe edition. A current movie! Went to this one last week when we went out for our anniversary. Our other choice was Iron Man 2, but Steph apparently never watched the DVD for the first movie (I could have sworn we watched it together, but maybe not). Still, not bad. Not as campy as the Kevin Costner movie (ok, I only missed Alan Rickman), and better dramatic wise and realism wise. Naturally took liberties with history, but don't they all, when you're dealing with a bit of a mythological or at least legendary person. I liked finally seeing a portrayal of Eleanor d'Aquitane and acknowledging that she had a pretty significant role during that time period. Also a lot more french than normally seen in these movies, which was also much more realistic. It could have used more french even, but then people would think they were seeing a foreign film. I was happy to understand a fair amount of the french, even without the subtitles. My main criticism, as many have pointed out, is the ages of the characters. Especially for that time frame, its totally unrealistic to have Robin Hood played by a 45 year old man. Crowe did a decent enough job at it, but definitely if they're going to do a sequel, better do so quick.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall - I keep hearing how "good" Judd Apatow movies are and yet every time I see one I have to wonder who thinks this? I guess they appeal to a certain segment of the population, maybe college age kids and maybe I would have liked this movie better if I was 20 years younger. I was bored throughout most of the movie and kept my finger on the fast forward button. I do have to say that I thought I had seen several of the actors in other things, but checking IMDb, nope. I guess these movies saturate the media quite well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)