Movies I'm excited for

So it's been awhile since I last posted anything. Prolific I ain't, what can I say? But I've been crawling around IMDB and Apple.com's trailer site and I must say, I'm impressed with the offerings of Hollywood. Sure, there's plenty of crap that's guaranteed to fill seats and sell lots of salty popcorn and icy Coke, but there's also a pretty decent selection of films that, from what I've seen, appear to be decent examples of what movie makers can do when they forget about the bottom line and focus on the story. I like to think that what I've selected as my must sees are not traditional summer fare (with one or two exceptions), but even if they are, so be it. It's hot, and the theaters have air conditioning, something which I (very regrettably) lack. Without further ado, my list of movies I want to see! These are in no particular order, by the way.















6.) Splice - Scientists create human/chimera hybrid and raise it as their own, only to have it turn on them. Sounds to me like every parent's very worst nightmare come true, with a delicious sci-fi twist. I predict that a new trend in hairstyling will sweep the nation after this movie comes out, something akin to the Rachael of the 1990s.

















5.) Predators - This is one of the ones I was referring to when I said that my list included a few examples of standard summer fluff. Let's be honest, the Predators are kind of bad-ass (if you forget about the horror that was AVP - Predators should not take pity/mercy on humans. Ever. That's why they're cool/scary. The end.). The mask, the skillz, the super-sized blade on the poster, yes, friends, I'm a bit of a sucker for gratuituous violence. This is not going to break any box-office records, but I think it looks entertaining, and when my brain is melting, that's really enough.


















4.) Inception - Would anyone out there think less of me if I revealed that when I saw the latest trailer for this, I drooled a little bit? Yeah, I didn't think so. You all did the same thing. Here's another query: can Christopher Nolan do wrong? Lately, I'm thinking no. This movie looks like an awesome, mind-bending trip that I can't wait to take. From what I gather, it's like they took the idea of Thought Police and just ran with it. Faaaaantastic.















3.) Dinner for Schmucks - Yeaaaahhhh... I'll level with you, the only reason I have any interest in seeing this is because of Steve Carrell's character's fashioning of 'mouse-terpieces', little diorama-esque recreations of various paintings (The Last Supper is the one featured in the trailer). Call me bizarre, call me morbid, call me a fan of miniature recreations of paintings featuring mouse corpses. I'm sold.















2.) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - Michael Cera meets girl. Michael Cera falls for girl. Michael Cera must fight, to the death, all seven of girl's evil exes in order to win her heart. Feckin' awesome, says this girl. Feckin' awesome. I've only had someone's ex threaten to punch me while she was drunk as a skunk, but I'm going to choose to view that as a parallel experience, making this movie something like an autobiography for me, told through a male's perspective. P.S. I want a t-shirt with Scott Pilgrim waving triumphantly on it, like he is in the poster. I want to stand on a mountain and, while wearing this shirt, make the same gesture.











1.) Resident Evil: Afterlife: - I feel like I should be tired of this franchise, but I'm not. I think it's due to my secret suspicion that all corporations are experimenting with dangerous materials that, if leaked to the public, would end life as we know it. We all remember the Tickle Me, Elmo debacle, do we not? I shudder at how close the world came to shutting down over those things. Life imitating art, people. I saw people reduced to the most primal of urges while trying to get their hands on those things. Reminds me of a certain stock of villain in the R.E. universe... can't put my finger on which one though...

So that's it for the moment. Plenty of movie watching to last me the whole summer, I think. What say you? Am I missing something? Shanks!

Potato Famine

This is what an encyclopaedia entry for "Potato Famine", as written by me, would look like. You're welcome, brutha.

Potato Famine: A revolt which claimed an estimated fifteen lives in the first half of the first month of the year 1840. Unsatisfied with their lot in life, the potatoes of Ireland unearthed themselves the night before harvest time. The possibility of starvation loomed large in the populace's mind for the whole of one day. A march was organized by the potatoes, with the intention of forcing the Irish to realize how much their livelihood depended on the potatoes. In the ensuing craziness, a large percentage of the people exchanged the majority of their material goods (what little they had) in exchange for money. A quickly organized slave trade ensured that, for those who could afford them, potatoes could still be had. The treatment of these potatoes was often brutal. Whipping, or mashing, the potatoes was common, after which they poured hot butter and salt on the potatoes, the butter as a symbol of the potatoes' "greasy" or "slippery" treachery, and the salt symbolizing the salty language the potatoes would use to taunt the weak, not-really starving Irish. Finally, the tensions came to a head when the potatoes were defeated by the Irish in the famous battle of Au Gratin. The potatoes, called "taters" by their Irish captors, were sent to Malcolm French, a famous executioner. French sliced the "taters" to bits, then threw the bits into hot oil. A headline of the time were supposed to read "FRENCH FRIES REBEL POTATOES", but the print size was too large, and the headline of several copies (before being corrected due to the unfortunate and unintended meaning) read only: "FRENCH FRIES".

L'avocate du diable

Whilst perusing Google News today, I came across an article on the UN's proposed expansion of Iran sanctions. Since this post is titled "Devil's Advocate", you can probably guess the direction I'm going in here. A caveat: I don't claim to know much about this situation, I don't have a solution to this problem, and I realize that this is probably as good an answer as the world is likely going to get. End caveat.

My issue with the idea of sanctions is that someone gets the authority to decide what a country should and should not be allowed. Concern over Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons is the issue at hand in this case. Based on what I've read (which is admittedly very little), it seems that Iran had previously agreed to relinquish its stores of uranium, and it is now attempting to stave off expanded U.N. sanctions by upgrading some of its uranium to medical research quality while trading the remainder with Turkey and Brazil. Apparently, Iran is like a child, and should not be allowed to play with toys like nuclear weapons. The U.S., on the other hand, the only country in the history of the world to have ever used nuclear weapons against another country, has never invaded another country for any reason other than to free puppies and secure the well-being of rainbows, and it certainly would never use flashy weapons against other countries if it did happen to invade.

Sidenote: If it were the case that the U.S. actually learned from its previous misadventures into the murky world of pseudo-colonialism, this might not be such an issue. But it seems to me that time and time again, the U.S. sallies forth into foreign lands, dollar signs glinting in its eyes and guns held firmly. Any prior debacles or scandals or atrocities seem to be forgotten, at least on the surface. Maybe the men in charge think that different initial circumstances will yield different results. I sound like a conspiracy theorist or sidewalk activist or something.

There are, of course, countries which would use weapons against other countries will nary a moment's thought, and damn the consequences that come from this usage. But it seems awfully hypocritical for the U.S. to force the hand of other countries for attempting to play ball with the big boys. I understand that the U.S. has the whole "learn from experience" thing going on. I just still have to think maybe the U.S. should seriously think about refraining from sticking its nose in other countries' business, at least for a little while. I think it's safe to say every generation has experienced hardship due to America's incessant interventions. I don't know where I'm going with this, and I sound like I'm ranting, so I'll conclude with this letter to the U.S.:
"Dear United States of America-

Get off your high horse, please and thank you.

Signed,
Selga"

Lastly, this is in no way related to what I was just talking about, but I would like to take this moment to say that I really have no patience for people who leave their windows open in the summer, knowing there's a good chance their neighbors have their windows open as well, and then proceed to yell at each other constantly. Shut up. Also, people, I know you think your $200 speakers from Speaker King are the coolest thing ever created, and I'm sure you think that blaring your tunes for all the world to hear is some sort of musical gift, but trust me on this, they aren't, and it isn't. I sound like such a bitch. I'm really not. Everyone was given a gift at birth. Mine was the gift of passive-aggressive snarking. Can't let these things go to waste.

Scary TV. That's the best title I could come up with.

The Weeping Angels, a.k.a. the Lonely Assassins.

Imagine, if you will, wandering around a large, run down house. Scattered throughout the rooms are large stone statues of angels, angels whose faces are covered by their hands, making them appear to be weeping. Entering a room, you notice one in the corner. You take your eyes off it for a second, and when you have turned your focus back to it, it is an inch away from you, and it is no longer weeping. Creepy shit, that.

I'm melting!!!

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "Conversations with Dead People".
I was talking to a co-worker of mine who seemed to feel that this episode was not really scary at all. He continued to feel this way until I reminded him of the scene in the Summers kitchen, where the only response to Dawn's queries, "Mom? Are you okay?" and "Are you alone?" were house-shaking two-bang "NOs". That scene alone made me long for a pair of adult diapers, but when Joyce appears on the couch, looking very, very dead, while what the writers at TWOP called a "frogman" crouched over her, I was seriously freaked out. I think the picture of Joyce in all her dead glory should help to bolster my case for this episode.

This is pretty much what I look like when I watch TV, minus the snow-white eyes.

Dr. Who, "The Time of Angels".
Yet another Dr. Who episode featuring the Weeping Angels. The creepiness of these things cannot be understated people. It might sound stupid: an angel statue that can only move when you aren't looking at it, but trust me, it is. This is a Season 5 episode, and I don't want to give away too much lest there be a fan out there who has yet to catch up, but I will say this: being trapped with an angel statue while the light is failing would rank among my least favorite ways to die. Just in case anyone's reading this late and night and is thinking, "Hmm... I don't really want to go another night without a nightmare", here's a clip. Enjoy, my babies! P.S. I don't know why it got cut off, my best efforts to correct this were unsuccessful. Sorry.

That's why you should never sit too close to the TV.

Dr. Who, "Flesh and Stone".
Sigh. I really love the Weeping Angels as a villain. They can't die! They move faster than light, provided no one's looking at them! They are assassins! This episode is marginally less creepy than "The Time of Angels", but any time they show the angels' slow progression towards their intended victims, the result is absolutely brilliant. I'll shut up about the angels now, partly because there aren't any more episodes featuring them.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "Hush".
Ah, yes. This episode was, in my mind, fantastic. I was disappointed to find out that the actors actually spoke their lines and the sound was removed later. I would have been slightly more impressed if they had actually done the whole episode how it appears. Anyways, Doug Jones plays one of the Gentlemen, and can that guy do wrong, at least when it comes to creepy-ass thin men? I think not. The grotesque smiles stretched across their faces are so awesome. In a scary way. The scene where Tara sees them zooming towards her from across campus, flanked by their little shackled "Igors" gets me every time, even though I know it's coming. I always get this intense sense of dread whenever I see it.

If you're happy and you know it....

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "Forever".
A lot of these episodes only have one or two really spooky scenes, and this one doesn't differ in that respect. The level of spookiness achieved is pretty stellar, and so that's why they've been selected. This episode was actually kind of boring to me for most of it (sorrrrry....), but late in the episode it's revealed that something (likely) wicked the Summers' way comes. I really, really, really, really understand the bargaining stage of grieving. I really understand the intense feeling of frustration that comes with realizing that no matter how much you beg, plead or threaten, what you want most is what you can't have. I get it. But I draw the line when the only way to bring back a deceased loved one is to bring them back as a zombie. It's traumatic enough to see them dead the first time. Having to fight them off as they attempt to relieve you of your pesky, weighty brains is quite another.

This is, obviously, NOT a screenshot from "Forever". It is one of Google's image results, however, and it is rather creepy.

I realize these are all "Buffy" and "Dr. Who" episodes. This makes me think that A) I seriously need to start watching more TV (except that I really, really don't) and B) I apparently harbor a deep-seated phobia of statues. All statues (or very nearly all) kind of give me the heebie-jeebies. And that word, "heebie-jeebies" is way too much fun to say, especially if you say it like King Julian from "Madagascar".

Seriously, watch these movies.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't consider myself to be anything resembling an expert of film. I wouldn't even dare to call myself a movie-phile, or whatever the correct term is and damnit why does my cat insist on cuddling the second he sees my laptop emerge?! He ignores me all day until the laptop comes out, then it's all cold-wet nose rubbies and head butting and trying to help me type. Bleh. I love him to death, but oh mylanta is it annoying. Anyways. My cat is always making me digress. I'm going to digress even further because I am re-watching the first season of the re-vamped "Doctor Who" series. I was confused as to whether or not it's really the first season, and according to Wikipedia, it counts as the first season even though it's kind of a continuation. Anyways, for anyone reading this, it's the season with the Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston).
My point, whenever I can get to it, is that companion Billie Piper's mascara is so damned clumpy that I can't focus on anything being said for the first few seconds she appears on screen. I seem to remember that it gets better as the series goes on, but in the first season, it's bloody awful. I refuse to believe that the entire country of Britain was lacking in non-clumping mascara, and even if it was, there exists such a thing as a lash comb. It's nice. It prevents clumpies.
I'd also like to mention that while Ms. Piper is by no means "fat", she is also not the size 0 starlet I, as a habitual American TV viewer, am so accustomed to seeing. I'd like to applaud the BBC for realizing that it's okay to hire girls with a little wiggle in their step (and again, Billie Piper does not have much, but it's enough to make me feel better).
It seems to me that when Hollywood (I'm using the term to refer to the film/television industry at large) casts females, they are either size 0 or plus size. And I would appreciate it if the size 0 cast member pulled a Dodo-bird. It seems that even size 6 is too big for movies/TV (I cite "The Devil Wears Prada", in which the main character is teased for being a monstrous size 6 - she's in the fashion industry, which is intricately connected to media of various forms, so it counts).
Anyways. I know I'm not the first person to comment on this, and I won't be the last, but here's my two cents: size 6 and up is A-OK in my book. Anything smaller is seriously bullshit and I refuse to believe that there are so many women who are naturally that thin. Yeah, I could get that thin, "naturally", if by that you mean, "Throwing up all my food made me super-skinny, NATURALLY!!". Hee. There's a pterodactyl/dragon on "Doctor Who" eating wedding guests, which is exactly how I've always envisioned my wedding day - locked in a church whilst fending off a pack of pseudo-dinosaurs. Ho-boy I've really gotten off track. I'd heard... somewhere... that costumers/designers prefer skinny actresses because they're easier to dress, or because the clothes look better, and on fashion shoots the sample sizes are very very small. My response to the designer: design clothes that aren't fucking ridiculous and anyone will look good in them, because guess what? The women who are buying your designs are probably not going to be 6 feet tall and weigh 100 pounds and your offerings are not going to look good and that really should reflect just as badly on you as it does on them, but I've noticed that people put the blame on the women's figure if something looks bad (which is sometimes the case - women with large shoulders should never wear shoulder pads, for example). But seriously, design clothing that the average woman can wear. For the costumers, what the hell? Are you buying cloth to make each garment and are therefore concerned about keeping total yardage down? Because that's the only reason I can understand why smaller actresses/smaller clothes make sense. For fashion shoots, same reasoning: are you sending the smallest article of clothing hoping to be able to use the smallest box and save money on postage??? What. The. Fuck.
Beautiful plus size women exist. Martine McCutcheon, a.k.a. Natalie from "Love, Actually", is probably one of the most beautiful women on the planet. And she's a bit larger than her cast-mate Keira "Why-The-Hell-Don't-I-Fix-My-Underbite" Knightley.
I'm going to cut myself off now, because like a good tequila, bitching about the rarity of a healthy looking actress in Hollywood is something from which I have trouble refraining.
This post was titled "Seriously, watch these movies". So, seriously, watch these movies: "The Fall", "The Man From Earth", "Princess Mononoke", "Le Planete Sauvage" and "Camille". The last one is, admittedly, kind of trite, but it's entertaining, or at least it was for me. "The Fall" is, for me, almost without flaws. I can't speak about that movie highly enough. I watched it at least once a day, every day, for a month straight once. It's amazing. "The Man From Earth" is on occasion hampered by mediocre acting... actually, the acting is pretty sub-par from most of the actors throughout most of the movie, although it does have a pretty prominent "Hey! It's That Guy!" (tm TWOP) in it. The story is fascinating, however, which is pretty much the only reason I've sat through this movie at least 30 times. The last three are vastly different, and I've run on far too long, so suffice it to say that they are all definitely worth checking out, in case anyone happens to find themselves in the unfortunate position of having nothing to watch on a particular evening. I've told anyone and everyone I know about the genius of "The Fall", and now it seems to me that they have trouble refraining from rolling their eyes when it comes up, so you, online audience, are my new target.
Very. Last. Thing. "The Empty Child" and "Blink" are seriously some of the creepiest television I've ever seen in my life. The first one is because I'd be terrified by a child following me around bleating the word "Mommy" over and over. The second one is because well... it really just is. Check it out sometime. It has Carey Mulligan in it, and she has long hair and looks way prettier than she did at this year's Oscars! Anyone, anyone??

So I attended an abortion debate yesterday. It was very interesting, as one might expect. I was extremely impressed with both debaters, although David Boonin, who was arguing in favor of the pro-choice argument, really blew my mind (I should admit a little bit of bias, since I am myself pro-choice). His argument was absolutely not what I was expecting to hear. His argument, in a nutshell, was that a fetus has the same right to life (or right to live, whatever) as anyone. What it does not have is the right to another human's body to live. Oh cute: my cat is covering his eyes with his paw. Sorry, I get distracted easily. It's really cute. It's like he's ashamed or something. Maybe he dreamed that he peed and couldn't hide it. ANYWAY! Fetuses! I guess I would say that Boonin's argument centered around consent, in that a woman's consenting to have sex is by no means the same thing as her consenting to have a child. There's plenty of objections to this, one which I myself would argue, but they are sort of not addressing the act of abortion. The objections (use of contraceptives) are really more like suggestions to prevent the need for abortions in the first place, which I think is a perfectly reasonable argument to make. However, should a woman find herself knocked up, I do not think she should be obligated to have the kid. Just my opinion, and anyone who suggests that I'm evil or that I'm saying this because I hate kids is right (at least on the second point).
A few people at the debate went off on tangents during the Q&A portion and didn't really ask relevant questions, which was sort of annoying, though they raised important points. One woman suggested that any woman who actually saw the evidence of the life growing inside them (via a sonogram) would feel differently about having an abortion, and she tearfully objected that life is wonderful, life is sweet, life is soft sand under your feet (she didn't say that last bit). Ok, fine. I don't know what it's like to see proof of the baby in your belly. Never had it happen to me. And she's probably right, it probably would completely change my mind and I would probably rush out and buy sixty thousand diapers and enough formula to feed the entire infantile population of Kenya and what-the-fuck-ever. If I knew I was pregnant, then I knew there was a life inside me. Seeing it might provide a shock, but I don't think it's a sufficient condition to changing my mind. Necessary, bien sûr, but not sufficient.
I should really get the fudge off my soap box now, but this is my blog, so there. I really liked both speakers (honest!), and I think they both made valid points. One of the audience members who went on a little tangent made the point that perhaps people should focus on fixing the world before bringing more people into it, and I have to say that while that doesn't have a damn thing (really) to do with abortion, it's a valid point. The world's overpopulated and rotten with problems which need fixing. The addition of more humans is seriously not helping. In my mind, anything which helps keep the population down (ok, almost anything) is preferential. I'm not suggesting mandatory sterilization or the revival of eugenics, so keep your pants on. Just that perhaps it would be nice to ensure that only people who actually want kids are having them.
Anyone who wants birth control, and effective birth control, should have access to it. Educate people about the consequences of sex. For the people who want kids, throw (legitimate!!!) monetary figures at them so they know how expensive babies are (and not just for them, for everyone and everything [Mother Nature gets a say]). I've heard people saying things like, "How expensive could it be?". Really damn expensive. Education, education, education. I've noticed that highly educated people are always blathering on about education, saying it's the key to everything. And it is. You could cure or destroy the world, all depending on how much you allow people to learn. Enough from me!!!! I'm sick of myself now.
P.S. I got really parentheses happy in this post. Hee!

New Banner!

Gots ta give a shout-out to Bee, who created my super new and super awesome new banner! Thanks, B! Couldn't have done it without you! (P.S. That was a "Buffy" shout-out) This blog will get better, friends. I initially had written there the word "batter". I think this blog could be vastly improved with the addition of copious amounts of blueberry pancake batter. Thoughts?

Easter special... Christmas good.

A'ight friends, it's time for my Easter special! I did a to-do list on my Facebook last year, and I feel that it would be pointless to try to top that, so I'm going to recount the story of Easter. Also, I'm going to offer up some suggestions for Hollywood on how they can make their action/adventure film stand out. Without further ado, the Easter story, as told by Sarah.*

So, once upon a time, there was a man who (if paintings hung in countless funeral homes/retirement homes [note that they both are "homes"...] are to be believed) had blue eyes, white skin and teeth, and long, flowing blond hair. His name? Jesus. Jesus H. Christ. Occupation? Carpenter and sometime wine maker extraordinaire/fish monger/baker/medic. A real jack of all trades, that one. Pet peeves? Men who try to make a living in the house where God does his living. Anyways, this guy, J.C., pissed off some Romans with his speechifying and so they executed him. But they also turned it into a big ordeal. And they executed two other guys so J.C. would have some company. They were in the midst of a recession, like us nowadays, so the guys they would have hired to carry the crosses were laid off, thus requiring J.C. and company to carry said crosses themselves. They arrived at the site, and J.C. got to wear a crown. Not a Burger King crown, mind you. They didn't start making those until 56 A.D. J.C. got a crown of thorns... which is as nice a song title as "Crown of Love", though the meaning is changed somewhat. Back to the story. J.C. gets nailed (or tied) to the cross and is left up there. It's all very sad, and if you're Mel Gibson, bloody. If you're Keith Phipps, it's all bloody awful. Ahem! Back. To. The. Story. J.C. is hurting, but bad. He cries out to Papa, and then dies. The End. But not. He is placed in a tomb! He rests for three days! He returns, crows' feet and worry lines banished! He has found his connection in the great circle of life. Fast forward 2,010 years. Consider, if you will, a Peep. Small. Yellow. Marshmallowy. Disgustingly sweet. Annoyingly cute. What does this have to do with Easter? Well, after minutes of intense thought, here's my conclusion: not much. I could say that Peeps are shaped like rabbits, which like to procreate, which is what nature does in spring, and that it signifies rebirth and renewal, which is what Jesus did (rebirthed). But that's not funny. So here's my connection: Peeps are a requisite candy at Easter because: A) they are small, like the nails used to affix our zombie lord to his cross, B) they are yellow, because I'm sure Jesus pissed himself at some point (wouldn't you?), and I'm sure that even his urine contains enough holy properties to purify Ann Coulter's soul (and oooh the thought of sprinkling pee on that woman...), C) they are marshmallowy because you can pull, tear, pierce and poke a marshmallow, and it will not condemn you... (wha?), D) they are disgustingly sweet because... family time = bitternessand the sweetness provides contrast aaaaaaand E) they are annoyingly cute because deep down, we are all horrible creatures who secretly enjoy biting the head off first, and more so when the head is cute (sure, why not), so every time a Peep is mercilessly devoured, the need for Jesus' sacrifice is made clear. Sigh.

On a completely unrelated note, I went to a movie on Friday. It was enjoyable, if a little clichéd at times. I couldn't help but think of ways that action/adventure movies could be improved if Hollywood would just stray a leeeetle bit from the formula they so rigidly stick to as of now. The first thing I'm sick of seeing: during fight/training scenes between men and women, the combatants invariably end up in a quasi-sexual pose, normally either man on top or woman on top. They remain there, breathless, gazing into each others' eyes, to drive home the point that, yes, they are fighting, but they also lurve each other. Or they at least lust after each other. Point is, it's been done, and done, and done, and done. So I got to thinking that maybe, instead of having the characters stop with girl-on-top/guy-on-top pose, Hollywood could take a page (literally) out of the Kama Sutra and have the characters end in, say, "congress of a cow". Look it up. It's probably the most implausible position to have them stop in, but man would it be funny. At least to me. There's more to be added to this list of suggestions, but my tummy hurts from devouring Easter marshmallows, and I need to seek solace in the bottom of a bottle of Jack (again, wha?). MERRY EASTER!!!

*I don't know this story half as well as a girl who went to Catholic school should. I do know it as well as I care to, however, which is just as good.

Fresh words!

I haven't posted anything for a few days, and I have a very good reason. The best reason of all, actually. I have not posted anything because I have been, simply put, too damn lazy. I apologize, my babies (of which there are now 3!). The fracking neighbor is singing. Again. I believe I have now been treated to "There You'll Be", "Love Story", and "Somebody to Love". I can't be sure, since the songs she (I've decided I don't care about protecting my abuser anymore) sings are all melting together due to the shitty-ness of her voice. It's all off-key high notes to me. Am thinking of purchasing a karaoke machine and warbling "(If You Can't Sing It) You'll Have to Swing It" over and over, in tribute to the fact that not only is my neighbor a horrendous singer, BUT she is also a swing dancer, apparently. She sucks at that too, I would imagine.
I have a beef with a certain college I live near. I feel that maybe I have just had bad experiences with the students who attend said college, but all the same, I've developed the opinion that the people who go there are self-centered brats with pacifiers stuck firmly in their mouths.
I take a certain way to work, and it requires me to drive past the dorms of this college. Every single time I do this, no matter what time of day it is, someone is parked in the middle of the street. They aren't unloading or loading things. They're just sitting there with the hazards on. It's annoying, since the road is A) not that big to begin with and B) made smaller by the fact that people park on both sides of the street. If someone then double parks, there's next to no room to drive by, which makes me want to commit a drive-by.
Also, my neighbors attend this college. They strike me as... potentially socially retarded... If that's too un-PC then apologies, but who does karaoke in their apartment on a Tuesday afternoon? As far as I can tell, there's just one person singing, which suggests that she is alone in her apartment, singing (off-key) to herself. I refuse to believe she's in a choir, so I can't figure out why she insists on tormenting those around her. Oh yay! Kelly Clarkson's "Since You've Been Gone"! Sung with no feeling! AND SO FRACKING OFF KEY I WANT TO PERFORM A LOBOTOMY ON MYSELF! please help me.... Bee, you understand my pain!
So, yeah. I try not to judge, but these girls make it easy. Anyways, enough about that. I have a (possibly) special treat coming up: a short story I've been working on! Yay! Can I just break for a moment and say that I love pretending that anything I write in here is gripping to those few people who actually read it? It's funny to me to act as though a short story by me will have as much impact as the next Neil Gaiman work.
Returning to my previous thought, the story is a little dark (keeping in line with just about every piece of fiction I've ever written) but hopefully it's not a total pile of shit. When it's posted, I welcome critiques and comments, but please, be gentle. So...that's it for now, I guess. Until we meet again: keep it clean, kiddies!

Musing's what I do best

Whilst watching a wonderful webisode of "Weeds" (wooo, those W's be the end of me), I began thinking about certain singers who should be actresses. I only have two in mind at the moment, but I strongly feel that these two could find themselves solidly employed if they took up acting.



1. Alanis Morissette, "Dogma", "Weeds" Season 5. I'll admit that I, like countless other young angsty souls in the mid-90's, fell under the spell that was "Jagged Little Pill". I will also admit heartily enjoying tracks off of her later offerings "Under Rug Swept" and "So-Called Chaos". But as much as I appreciate her music, it is, at least for this blogger, her acting that really steals the show, so to speak. Admittedly, she has all of one line ("Meep!) in "Dogma", but it seemed to me even then that she wasn't just phoning in her performance and allowing her celebrity status to define the role (though to me, it's slightly genius to have a women who sang about blow-jobs in movie theaters portray God). In "Weeds", there is definitely evidence of a woman who knows she is not just there for her "Hey! I know her!" appeal. Her performance is understated, to be sure, but that's exactly why it's so special. It seems to me that most of the time, when a guest star is on camera, they fill the screen with their presence, even though the show is, literally, not about them. I don't know if I would go so far as to suggest that Ms. Morissette could carry a movie or show all by her lonesome, but as part of an ensemble cast, she would be stellar.



2. Courtney Love, "200 Cigarettes", "Man on the Moon". Once again, I have to admit an appreciation for one album to which Ms. Love contributed: "Celebrity Skin" by Hole. Shut up, haters. I was in 7th grade, and that album, along with Garbage's "Version 2.0", got me through the cess-pool that is middle school. Also, I still love the song "Malibu" off that CD. So again, shut it. Anyway, "200 Cigarettes" is an odd movie, but the acting's solid all around, and Courtney's role as Lucy is great. Pretty sure Courtney Love is certifiable in real life, but she manages to tone it down for this role, letting just enough of her couldn't-care-less attitude shine through to give the character, who might have come off as desperate, a little bit of edge. In "Man on the Moon", she plays Andy Kaufman's love interest, Lynne. I love her in this film. She's very real and lacking in any traces of celebrity pompousness. Love. It.

There have to be other examples of singers who really should consider career moves. I can think of tons who've tried and failed, but I refuse to dip my toes into waters where so many others have swum. What could I possibly say about "Glitter" that a million plus people have not said already? Nothing, peeps. Nothing. Plus, thinking of those singers who need to try acting more is a little more difficult. If anyone actually read this, I would expect my comment section to be flooded with examples of people I've missed, as well as the usual "You're so right!"/"You're dead wrong!" comments.

Super Happy Fun Time! Today I've decided to go with waking up to quiet thunderstorms. It's only happened a couple of times to me, but it is amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying the soft sound of rain hitting pavement in the morning, but when combined with a quiet rumbling of thunder, it's (dare I say it? Yes.) magical. Maybe it's just me, but there are just some mornings when nothing but a nearly pitch-black sky, covered in rain-heavy clouds, will do. Those will never be days when I get a ton of stuff done, but there's something to be said for lazy days. See my last post about passive aggressiveness. Maybe "calling in well" is really the key to saving humanity? But I digress. Super Happy Fun Time... COMPLETE!

First post. I'm a little intimidated by the big, empty, white space where my thoughts are supposed to go and by the blinking cursor, which seems to be getting impatient with my hesitation to write anything. Ah-ha! My topic has just driven down the driveway.
My downstairs neighbor likes to sing. I like music. I like being serenaded. I applaud those who sing even though they have no talent, because they have courage that I do not. But this particular chanteuse/chanteur is the exception. He (or she)* does not merit shouts of "Bravo" or a standing ovation for their bravery. I instead find myself searching for a tomato, an empty tuna can, a boot or some other item to throw. I mentioned the above items because it seems to me that, whenever someone throws something in movies/TV (particularly in cartoons), it is one of the three items listed above. Makes you wonder. Anyways, the shrillness of this person's voice makes my skin crawl, and I am often forced to wonder how they can't recognize the fact that they are constantly off key.
I don't sing. I can't sing. I refuse to assault others' ears with my warbling, and I feel that this decision is my greatest gift to humanity. The fact is, my singing can be used for one thing and one thing only: stopping an attack by giant, murderous tomatoes, or aliens, or chupacabras.** It stinks. But I recognize this. I really need to find a passive-aggressive way to alert my neighbor to the fact that he/she could literally mutilate a kitten with their vocal stylings, but in such a way that they don't know it's me doing it.
Which leads me to my next topic: passive aggressiveness. I am a fan of it, in part because it's so annoying. I've come across an increasing number of sites devoted to examples of passive aggressive behavior, and the consensus seems to be that it's awesome when you're the one being P.A., but it's damned obnoxious if you're on the receiving end. My theory on the increase in passive aggressive behavior is as follows, and it's not scientific, and I have not done any research to back it up, save for my periodic viewing of the sites mentioned earlier: People are wound tighter than they have ever been before in the entire history of mankind, even when they were being chased by dinosaurs on a daily basis.*** It's become a society where people aren't being pushed to the brink of insanity every day, but they instead have built permanent settlements on the brink. It's home now, this place. Little houses, built on toothpicks, perched precariously on the edge. It goes without saying that it doesn't take much to knock these things over.
SO. People can't cope with additional stressors anymore; when faced with even the tiniest bit of additional stress, people lose their fuggin' minds. Hence, passive aggressiveness. It's a survival mechanism. No one wants to be the guy (or girl) who decided to call out the guy line-cutting, only to have him turn around and blast everyone away, Matrix-style.**** Instead, they sigh loudly ("Hhhhhhh!"), or make comments ("Nah, it's cool, I was standing here to admire the scenery."), or, my personal favorite, glare daggers (..."Shz-z-z-z-z" [the sound of eye-daggers whizzing through the air]). What's so funny about glaring is that people have a tendency to either open their eyes extra wide and furrow their brows until they resemble the sorcerer from "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" in "Fantasia" (the one with Mickey?) OR squint until it looks like they're just trying to read a sign by their intended victim's head. I feel that it would be more effective to alternate doing both. Bug eyes! Squint. Bug eyes! Squint. It will, if nothing else, get the point across to everyone else that you are a crazy mother-fucker who is not to be trifled with!
So...yeah. Enough about that. It bores me now. Since there's little to no chance that anyone is actually going to be reading this... it's Super Happy Fun Time! This is the part of the blog in which I describe, in detail, something which I like. Today's selection is making smiley faces out of food. It brings me a joy I can't describe. Nothing in the world makes me so happy, not even watching old episodes of "Clarissa Explains It All". I once made a pork loin sandwich for a woman at my old job with no bun. She wanted lettuce, onions, pickles and mayo on it. I made pickle-eyes, a mayo-mouth, and onion-eyebrows. It looked overjoyed to be a sandwich. I thought the customer would like it. She didn't say a word when I set it in front of her. Not one. I very nearly took it back, but refrained. I've regretted it ever since. Hmm. Super Happy Fun Time didn't have its intended effect today. Perhaps tomorrow....


*Gender has been left ambiguous to protect the tone-deaf innocent. But you know who you are....
**The aliens and chupacabras need not be giant, just murderous. It makes my ability to slay them with just a quick run-through of "Without You" much more impressive if they are larger than 6 feet tall, however.
*** For those not familiar with their history, this period occurred between 1540 and 1678, until the invention of the Super-Duper-Dino-Shredder.
****Does this ever really happen? Has anyone ever really gone ape-shit over getting called out? I feel like this might just be an urban legend.