GR2BR

Promises, promises

2009-10-24T16:09:00.000-07:00

Baby Einstein, the mesmerizing visual babysitter that parents have been relying on and feeling good about since 1997, is now offering refunds. Refunds you ask? Are the disks disintegrating? Evincing built-in obsolescence? No, not at all.

Baby Einstein is offering refunds to all those parents whose children did not become geniuses after gazing hour after hour wide-eyed and slack-jawed at animation and jingles set to the melodies of Beethoven and Mozart.

Shockingly, it turns out you can't plop your child in a swing in front of the TV and expect that the child you take out of the swing will be, for lack of a better metaphor, Einstein. Indeed, not only are the videos not flowers for Algernon, they are closer to poison in the well. Far from beneficial, "studies show that television exposure at ages 1 through 3 is associated with attention problems at age 7," not to mention "the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time at all for children under 2."

The Walt Disney Company acquired the business in 2001 and are now on the hook to refund up to $15.99 to each household who purchased their DVDs between 2004 and 2009. Even that doesn't seem to be enough to motivate a change in the labeling, which not only still claims developmental benefits (all without using the forbidden word, "educational"), it also states that the videos are intended for babies 9 months and up. Hey, what do those pediatricians know anyway?

Now, my 5 year old niece is a veritable Einstein — if you don't believe me, ask her to quote any part of The Princess Bride. Spooky. Or to name like 100 extinct species of animals. Seriously. — and I don't know when she started watching TV or how much. But I'm pretty sure she could see right through Baby Einstein's new “enhanced consumer satisfaction guarantee.”

Change is hard

2009-10-23T20:24:00.000-07:00

But fun is... fun. And according to the folks behind The Fun Theory, fun is the, well, "easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better."

They're turning stairs into piano keys and recycling banks into arcades. And the people? They're playing and... playing.

Hear the music yourself:

(another video - you really should check it out if you can't see it)

The folks behind the fun Fun Theory? Volkswagen and their Swedish ad agency, DDB Stockholm. Funsters wanted.

Where are the wild things?

2009-09-27T14:23:00.001-07:00

On the silver screen, that's where. Turning this book into a movie is something I am sure I am not alone in contemplating with some skepticism. Where the Wild Things Are is a classic. Is anyone going to argue with me about that? I didn't think so.

Like Harold and the Purple Crayon, Goodnight, Moon, The Velveteen Rabbit, Bedtime for Frances. The very nature of the greatest children's books is how they live to come alive in each child's imagination. Differently. How can one movie accomplish that miracle?

Add to that, the history of children's books adaptations (Jim Carrey as the Grinch? Mike Meyers as The Cat in the Hat?), and I confess, I was far less than optimistic.

But... the trailers have been very enticing, and then I saw this featurette with Maurice Sendak himself and Spike Jonze talking about the movie, and hope swelled again:

(A video worth watching. Can't see it? Click here.)

So, as Max said, "Let the wild rumpus start!"

A picture, a thousand words

2009-09-24T11:28:00.000-07:00

One week, two flowers, 97 cigarettes.

Fischer & Fala, a Brazilian ad agency, was tasked with coming up with a campaign to coincide with new anti-smoking laws in Sao Paolo. Point made, guys.

The smoking plant (With english subtitles) from Fischer Fala on Vimeo.
(Yeah, yeah, it's a video. Can't see it? Click here.)

There can be only one (scratch that)

2009-09-22T13:38:00.000-07:00

"There can be only one."

Unless there is a remake. In which case, there can be only... two.

Yep, that's right, it's official. Highlander (RT-66), a cult classic if ever there was one, is being raped and pillaged. Sort of fitting, actually, when you think about it that way.

I mentioned this new law a while back that seems to have been passed here in Tinsel Town — that no new material can be developed, filmed or made. Upon further consideration, I think that may not actually be how the law goes. I think it's more something like this: for each film made based on original material, no less than 3 remakes must be in development and no less than 2 remakes must be in some stage of production.

Luckily, there are still some mavericks scheming and plotting to make original films (see 500 Days of Summer, RT-87, for an example). On the other hand, that adage, "if it worked once, it'll work again," or maybe it's this one: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to be this town's guiding principle. Empirically, it feels like about a five-to-one ratio, remakes to originals. But that's just me.

What brings on this tirade you ask? Luckily not a third remake of Sabrina (I don't think I could survive that) — no, today it's the news about Highlander, which is being repackaged, reimagined and remade. Why? No, really, why? I mean, the movie is a veritable cult classic, spawning one of the most classic movie lines of all time.

Matching Justin Lin, one of the newest up-and-coming action movie directors (Fast and Furious) with sribes Art Marcum and Matt Holloway (Iron Man) sounds like a fab idea. Why not have them cut their teeth on something we haven't seen before — I mean, we surely know the writers are up to the task.

What is it about Hollywood suits that makes them just love that brick wall? They must love it, to bash their head against it so persistently. Over and over and over again, never apparently feeling the pain. And I mean that. Because it's not like that brick wall is sprouting ticket sales and money. No, no, no. Not at all.

In this corner, we have the "Originals" weighing in at 600 lbs and ready to defend their championship, while in the other corner, we have the "Remakes," weighing in at just under 200 lbs, but stubborn as all get out. The "Remakes" just don't know when to quit:

Sabrina: Billy Wilder (1954) - 93, Sydney Pollack (1995) - 60
Love Affair: Leo McCarey (1939) - 86, Leo McCarey (1957 as "An Affair to Remember") - 64, Glenn Gordon Caron (1994) - 32
Charade: Stanley Donen (1963) - 91, Jonathan Demme (2002 as "The Truth About Charlie") - 33
(Let me point out that Audrey Hepburn starred in the original Sabrina, Cary Grant starred in "An Affair to Remember," and both Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant starred in the original Charade. Mark Wahlberg as Cary Grant? C'mon, you try saying that with a straight face.)
Psycho: Alfred Hitchcock (1960) - 98, Gus Van Sant (1998) - 37
The Bad News Bears: Michael Ritchie (1976) - 92, Richard Linklater (2205) - 46
Born Yesterday: George Cukor (1950) - 95, Luis Mandoki (1993) - 25
A Star is Born: William Wellman (1937) - 100, George Cukor (1954) - 100, Frank Pierson (1976) - 46

The originals beat the remakes by an average of 50 points per film. Fifty. Five zero. I myself would call that a rout, an ignoble defeat, an a$#-whupping of no small proportion.

And whether you blame it on the screenwriter, the director, or the dangblasted producer who put the whole thing together, I'd also like to point out that from a casting and talent perspective, The Bad News Bears traded Walter Matthau for Billy Bob Thornton, Born Yesterday traded Judy Holliday (in an Oscar-winning performance, no less) and William Holden for Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, and A Star is Born traded Judy Garland (in an Oscar-nominated performance) and James Mason for Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. Honestly, need I say more?

And before you get all het up, yes, sure, there are exceptions - Ocean's 11 (1960) gets a 48, while Steven Soderbergh's witty 2001 remake earns a well-deserved 81. But I maintain those exceptions are few and far between.

There can be only one. Except when there are two. That's show biz, baby.

Top 10 reasons to move back to New York

2009-09-16T17:38:00.000-07:00

Reason #10. Ice cream.

You're surprised? Nah, you're not surprised. What better reason to move 3,000 miles than to be in the city that has to-your-door delivery of home-made ice cream in flavors like brown-sugar-peanut-butter?

This is a company that knows its market — the subscriber list is being limited to 50. Talking about the "in-crowd."

Homemade ice cream delivered once a month, right to my door. Sigh.

Reasons 9 through 1 coming soon. Stay tuned.

Miles to go before I sleep

2009-08-27T09:42:00.001-07:00

Math can make your head spin. I was reading Seth Godin's blog (catching up on his blog actually, but whatever) and came upon his post, "Not so good at math." He reprinted the classic miles-per-gallon example, comparing Suburbans to Priuses, in which two alternative performance improvements are proposed and you are asked which is the better choice.

His point is to remind marketers that the ordinary consumer is, as he puts it "not wired for arithmetic. It confuses us, stresses us out and more often than not, is used to deceive."

Have you ever heard someone say, "numbers don't lie"? Yeah, right. Numbers may not lie, but they sure can obfuscate some cold hard facts, especially when wielded by a master.

To me, it's like the age-old question is lying by omission lying?

The mpg example goes like this:

You want to reduce gasoline consumption and, lucky for you, there are only two kinds of cars in the world. Half of them are Suburbans that get 10 miles to the gallon and half are Priuses that get 50.

If we assume that all the cars drive the same number of miles, which would be a better investment:

Get new tires for all the Suburbans and increase their mileage a bit to 13 miles per gallon.
Replace all the Priuses and rewire them to get 100 miles per gallon (doubling their average!)

That seems like a no-brainer, right? Well, except for the fact that you know there's a trick in there somewhere.

This is a bit of a mind bender, but think about it this way (since you've obviously figured out that the answer is NOT replacing the Priuses) — if you drive 25 miles in an "unmodified" Suburban, you'll go through 2 1/2 gallons of gas, while going through only 1/2 a gallon driving the same distance in a Prius. That's easy enough, right? Okay, stick with me. If you modify the Prius, doubling the gas consumption efficiency, and drive another 25 miles you'll save a whopping 1/4 gallon of gas.

But, if you modify your Suburban, improving gas consumption efficiency only by a third, and drive another 25 miles, you'll save 1/2 gallon of gas (actually, a little bit more). Twice as much as you would save modifying the Prius.

Basically, the Prius is already so efficient, that making it more efficient doesn't save you that much. But the Suburban is so inefficient, that even making it a little more efficient makes a big difference.

To Seth's point, however, who of us ordinary consumers would jump to that conclusion first? And no, Dad, you are not an ordinary consumer.

Friends don't let friends drive texty

2009-08-19T20:16:00.000-07:00

I considered posting the four minute British PSA about texting and driving, but it's bloody bloody. It's at well over a million views - if you haven't seen it, it's here.
I settled for this clip from Albuquerque's KOAT (yeah, yeah, it's a video. Can't see it? Click here):

According to this report, you're five (5) times more likely to have an accident if you text and drive.

Did I mention that all the PSA videos I watched on YouTube on the "dangers of texting and driving" were accompanied by cell phone ads from Wal-Mart. Is it just me, or is that like having Jack Daniels sponsor your local AA meeting?

Viti, Vini, Twenty...

2009-08-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

And no, that's not a spelling mistake. Caesar may have come, seen and conquered. I bet he didn't have nearly as much fun as my friends and I who came, saw and drank. Which would be veni, vidi, bibi, for those of you who keep track of these kinds of things.

Vitis vinifera (Viti Vinnie - sounds like he's in the "family") is the grape species responsible for over 99% of all wine produced. One grape can do a lot of damage.

Last week the challenge was to bring a red wine under $20 that no one would guess was under $20. We succeeded handily.

Here are the results, in no order except the first one:

#1. Ideology 2006, Cabernet Sauvignon from LA Wine Co. — $19.95. This was the hands down winner.

Celler Bartolome Finca el Mirador Bellmunt del Priorat 2006, Grenache/Carignena blend from Wine House — $17.99

Delas Cotes-du-Rhone Saint-Esprit 2007 from LA Wine Co — $9.95

Fetish The Watcher 2006, Shiraz from World Market Cost Plus — $17

Vino Sfuso 2008, Montepulciano Abruzzo blend — I don't know where this came from, but it's $6.99 at K&L

It may look like $72 worth of wine on paper, but it drank like $250. Or something like that. There is some mighty tasty wine out there for less than an Andrew Jackson.

There is also some fine wine out there that is decidedly not $20 — we did also pour two Turley 2006 Zins: the Juvenile and an Old Vines. Enough said.

We came, we drank, we ranked. We did a little stand-up. Hail Dino.

Never say no to dough

2009-08-15T15:57:00.000-07:00

I'm a New Yorker. No matter where I live, I'm still and always a New Yorker.

I am also, however, an eater. With a weakness for the four major food groups: grease, chocolate, bacon, and coffee. Which means that wherever I go, you can count on me to suss out the best hamburger, donut shoppe (I don't know why, but they all seem to spell it that way), steak house and coffee shop (not spelled the other way).

It has come to my attention that although I am a Los Angeles newbie, I may have a firmer grasp of donut shoppes than some LA denizens. Therefore, for all residents, long-term and newly arrived, and visitors, allow me to introduce you to Stan's Donuts.

Stan's is on the corner of Weyburn and Broxton in Westwood, across from two old-time huge movie theaters, a fact I mention because I have been known (once or twice) to buy one or two (or three) donuts on my way into the movies. Dinner of champions: a Coke, popcorn and donuts.

Stan's has been on that corner for over 40 years and his donuts are beyond description. Given that I'm writing about them, I'll give it a try: they are perfect. Forbes Magazine itself rated them "America's Best Donuts" in 2001.

Actually, forget it. Try them for yourself.

Harvey, phone home

2009-08-11T13:01:00.000-07:00

They've passed a new law. I don't know if you've heard yet, but no new material can be developed, filmed or made in Hollywood, under penalty of dire consequences (like being accused of having a brain or an original thought or thinking, horrors!, something different than everyone else).

Okay, so the law hasn't actually passed. But you'd never know. It's gotten so they don't even bother mentioning that the idea's recycled (you'd think they'd at least want credit for being eco-conscious). To wit, next year we'll see Keira Knightley helming Never Let Me Go, a movie about an isolated and idyllic boarding school that turns out to be breeding donor clones rather than raising British children.

If this sounds a bit familiar, perhaps that's because four years ago, we saw a small movie called The Island directed with typical delicate subtlety by Michael Bay. Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, glowing and gleaming in an idyllic and isolated community, eventually race to escape, still glowing and gleaming, upon discovering they are, aha!, nothing more than organ donors for the rich and reckless.

Granted, Never Let Me Go comes with a far more distinguished literary pedigree — it is based on a novel by the author of "The Remains of the Day," Kazuo Ishiguro. Still.

Why do I bring this up? Because Mr. Steven Spielberg himself is jumping on the remake bandwagon. Why I'm surprised by this, considering that he broke the 11th commandment and made a fourth sequel in the Indy franchise, I don't know. One lives in hope. At least I am able to report that Spielberg is not remaking anything from the last decade. Thank heavens for small favors.

Instead he is going back to the 1950s to "update" Harvey, a movie based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning play and written by its original award-winning playwright, Mary Chase. The 1950 movie starred an invisible 6 1/2 foot tall rabbit alongside Jimmy Stewart in an Academy Award nominated performance for best actor. If you haven't seen it, do so. As for the "update?" It's being written by first-time screen writer, Jonathan Tropper. Who hasn't won a Pulitzer Prize.

Having said all that, it makes perfect sense that they are remaking Total Recall. Because we probably forgot the first one. Hey, I can't make this stuff up.

My dog ate my homework

2009-08-09T13:11:00.000-07:00

It wasn't me, officer, I swear. My cat downloaded the porn.

No, I'm not kidding. Evidently they grow their felines different in Florida.

According to Keith Griffin, he never visited a single porn site. Not ever. His cat, on the other hand, would jump on the keyboard all the time, and wow!, all this porn would just, like, show up on his, like, monitor.

Don't say it. Don't say it.

Define irony

2009-08-08T11:55:00.000-07:00

Of all the books in all the world, Amazon chooses George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" to peremptorily delete from people's Kindle devices? You're kidding me, right?

This is the kind of thing that if I put it in my screenplay some reader would comment in the margin, and rightfully so, "Too spot on. Choose another book."

Yet, it did so happen that on the 17th of July, in the year of the Omnipotent and Everpresent, 2009, Amazon.com did in fact reach its eerie electronic tentacles out into the ether and remove every instance of "1984" and "Animal Farm" from every Kindle owner who had purchased the books. Just like that. Gone in an instant. Poof.

Big Brother comes to life and its name is Jeff Bezos. This is not a drill.

The irony of this situation is so incredible that you can't help but feel that some poor misguided PR peon is sitting in an office somewhere, cowering under his desk, muttering to himself over and over, "it wasn't supposed to happen like this."

To be scrupulously honest, I don't why, but why not, let's let Amazon 'splain. Or at least, sum up.

First, the books' publisher changed its mind about offering electronic versions of the books. Let me be clear, the publisher decided it wanted to rescind previously granted permission. Post-facto.
Next, Amazon crumpled under publisher pressure. Again, let me be absolutely clear. Amazon crumpled, surrendered, folded, caved like Kirstie Alley saying yes to a cupcake.
Finally, like the fog on little cat feet, Amazon snuck in like a thief in the night and absconded with its customers' books.

Well, that does clear everything up.

I hear that Amazon is promising never to do anything like this again. Promises, promises.

They decide this is the year to do this?

2009-07-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

You may have picked up on this. You may already know this. I'm a movie fan. Some might say a movie buff. However you want to slice it, I do love the movies. (And, by the way, that is a perfect example of the only time you should ever start a sentence with the word "however," otherwise, when you are using the word to mean nevertheless, "the word usually serves better when not in first position" — thank you, Mssrs. Strunk and White.)

And when it comes to the movies, I may not exactly be a gourmand, but I am definitely not a snob either. I am happy to be entertained by a movie. There are plenty of "cotton candy movies" — movies that are entertaining, even absorbing, for 120 minutes before they dissolve into nothing, leaving behind only the faintest memory of something slightly sickeningly sweet as you exit the theater — that make me happy, when they do what they set out to do. And I'm a firm believer that excellent stick-to-your-ribs movies, to stay with my movies-as-food metaphor, come in all genres, including comedies (It Happened One Night, RT-97, The Princess Bride, RT-96) and action movies (Die Hard, RT-94), as well as dramas (if I need to give you an example of an excellent drama, move on, you're probably bored silly by this column anyway).

But, 'tis true, bad movies also come in all genres. And this year, more than most, it seems to me, we have seen way more than our fair share of bad and disappointing movies. Movies that should've been good, or at the very least entertaining, were boring, or illogical, or too long, and just plain wrong. It's July and the best movie I've seen all year is a documentary. (Not that there's anything wrong with documentaries, but I'm a movie-girl. As in fiction. As in tell me a story, spin me a fantasy, show me the pretty people. I live to escape, what can I say?)

And because Hollywood doesn't do anything half-assed, except, evidently these days, make movies, the powers that be have decided that this year, this year, is the year they are going to expand the Best Picture Academy Award category from five nominees to ten. Yep, that's right, in a year when so far I have yet to see one picture I thought was fair, they're going to have to come up with ten (10!) to compete for best picture of the year. Now, granted, best is a comparative term, so sure, in that sense, it could work. Like Letterman's Top Ten movies not to see list.

Honestly, who is running Tinsel Town these days anyway? Somebody, stop them!

Pareto, shmeto - it's all 80/20 to me

2009-06-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

Jim Collins (the guy who wrote Good to Great, that book about some companies that were good, became great, and some of which—Circuit City and Fannie Mae, for two—are now bankrupt...) once said that each of his books come out of questions. Someone asks him a question to which he doesn't know the answer, and next thing you know...

A question was posed to me today: what kind of gibberish is "80/20"? Now, I knew the basics of the 80/20 rule—80% of your results come from 20% of your input (be it profits and customers, comments and readers, or whatever). But, upon further reflection, I realized I had no idea where that rule came from.

Turns out there was this guy, Vilfredo Pareto, in 19th century Italy, who posited that 20% of the population owned 80% of the land. And so it was.

Now it also appears that it those two numbers don't have to add up to 100. It could be 80/10 or 90/20. But the rule of thumb is 80/20.

And you all know where "rule of thumb" comes from, right?

that's Latin for...

2009-06-04T10:27:00.000-07:00

You know when you're arguing with someone, and you know you're right and they're wrong—but all of a sudden you're defending yourself for something wrong that you did? And you're sitting in jail, thinking to yourself, "Wait. How did this happen? Tiffany's the one who said she could hot-wire the car in under 4 seconds. How come we're fighting about the time last year when I forgot to dope the doberman?"

It's a nasty bit of argumentative "tactics"—and it even has a name. "Tu quoque," Latin for "you, also."

Turns out there's a whole host of related argument derailers to be on the look-out, grouped under "ad hominem," which means (those Latin—busy, busy) "against the man."

There's the abusive ad hom way to go: "when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position." Often called the "red herring" argument.

Then you've got the circumstantial route: "in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position.... The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance. "

If that's not enough, you can go with the ole reliable, Poisoning the Well:

To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way.... Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy...

The underlying fallacy here is that the counter-arguments against the original topic are based on everything but actual arguments (past acts, circumstances, character)—when, as everyone knows, arguments and counter-arguments must stand on their own merit, regardless of the person advancing them (even if she did forget to dope the doberman).

You're sure you want to call it that?

2009-05-30T08:37:00.000-07:00

"Moxie," courtesy Merriam Webster:

Pronunciation: \ˈmäk-sē\
Function: noun
Etymology: from Moxie, a trademark for a soft drink: 2: courage, determination;

Also the brand name for a new entry into the DVR wars, entering the lists against TiVo. I stumbled upon Moxi while comparing global annual movie attendance (twice as many tickets are sold in India than in the US—who knew? Sure, the data is 10 years old, but, what's a decade among friends?)

This Moxi thing sounded good at first read

before you spend your hard-earned cash on TiVo, you might want to consider something a little more robust, a lot more functional, and far less expensive. Tivo hasn’t upgraded its look and feel in nearly 10 years, and they stubbornly insist on charging you annoying monthly fees! Isn't electronic equipment supposed to get more functional, more powerful, and LESS expensive? Say hello to Moxi.

What could be bad, right? Ah, the power of curiosity combined with research (aided by the web, naturellement). According to cnet, "an $800 DVR has a tough row to hoe." No argument there.

I continue digging. Dave of ZatzNotFunny professes doubts regarding, hmmm, whether Moxi's UI will stay ad-free, whether its currently free features (such as HD programming) will stay free, and even whether the company will stay in business (to provide programming/guide data). He also points out that at $800, Moxi and TiVo are comparable in price over a four year span, to which I would add: who knows what technology lurks in the brains of geeks that will change our TV viewing lives by then?

So although I think Moxi is appropriately named—as in "they sure have Moxi to be charging $800 for that!"—I'm not really sure they made the best brand name choice. But that's just me.

Because I don't have enough ways to waste time

2009-05-28T15:24:00.000-07:00

You know the expression "herding cats?" Well go ahead, give it a try.

Not as easy as it looks, ay?

Oh look, there went 3 hours.

My kind of peeps

2009-05-22T08:54:00.000-07:00

Don't you just love it when you stumble onto a brainwave that's in sync with your own whacked out brainwave?
And when that brainwave is online, happily snarking about movies and TV and books and pop culture in general, well, it just sends my brainwaves into a veritable spasm of glee.
The A.V. Club is "an entertainment newspaper and website published by The Onion"—that's how they put it. So humble.
They have a movie review category "I Watched This on Purpose"—current entries include The DaVinci Code and Max Payne. I feel for you, man.
There's a column called The Hater. Seriously, it's her job to snark.

When you see the words "Cougar Town" smashed together like that in your line of vision, what image stumbles to the front of your mind? A zoo enclosure, maybe? A cartoon about a city run by anthropomorphized mountain lions? Knives, just many, many sharp knives? The Real Housewives Of New York City? Courtney Cox drunkenly slurring "you're hot as balls" at some guy at a club?

Well, if you said that last one, you work for ABC.

Ouch.

And how can you not like a TV reviewer who says "Jane Lynch is, of course, hilarious, though she only pops up here and there, like a secret comedic weapon"? Or a music review that uses Eminem and Oprah in the same sentence? What about a "Gateway to Geekery"? Expressly designed to "help those who want to be enthralled, but aren’t sure where to start" become obsessed with some pocket of pop culture. Because lord knows we need help there.

Inducting Brick, you know, that movie that recognizes that "the common denominator between crime fiction and high school is a mood of heightened emotion obscured by a thin veneer of cool," into the site's New Cult Canon of film seals the deal. Brick is up there with Repo Man ("straddling the borderline between the New Cult Canon and the Old, Alex Cox's grubby, shaggy-dog tale feels like the starting line for modern dark-comedy indies"). Any site that has the chops to recognize that is a site for me.

It isn't every day you find an e-kindred spirit.

The things people say

2009-05-21T15:37:00.000-07:00

According the founders of this site, TextsFromLastNight, the site (please note all typos and grammatical errors theirs not mine)

was founded in February 2009 by two friends for reasons that may or may not include: the tendency to press send more easily as the night turns to morning, friends social habits, Kwame Kilpatrick, exes, law school, closing down bars and leaving tabs open, general debauchery and/or a common disgust for all the negativity surrounding the "sexting" phenomenon.

That's not what got my attention, actually.

It's the self-revelation of the site. You have to send in your own texts—it's not like overhearing a conversation on the bus that amuses you and then you share it, like the good ol' days. Nope, now not only can (and evidently, do) we amuse ourselves, we can spread the word that we're amusing. Or self-deprecating. Or self-mortifying. Or self-important. Let's not forget that one.

Nonetheless, some people really do have an ear (and thumb) for what's funny.

(302): I'm trying to bond with my sister... Its like getting to know a person I never met that I don't like

(314): Does leaving at 3 give Sara enough time to take the bus or are you picking her up?
(573): I cant tell if your joking or not, but I'm picking her up
(314): Do you need some kind of permission slip from her parents or can anyone just go and grab a high schooler these days?
(Yeah sure, scary. But funny.)

(213): he quoted Bring It On. It's over.

Bait and switch

2009-04-25T15:38:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying, I liked Crank. The first one. And I like Jason Statham. The only one.

So I expected the second Crank with Statham to be, you know, a sequel. In the way sequels usually are—similar, maybe not as good, but the cut from the same cloth, made from the same mold, more of the same. Not an unreasonable expectation.

I did not expect to walk into Die Hard meets Saw IV—and I use that analogy not randomly, as one of the first (in subtitles) lines in the movie is, I kid you not, "What can I tell you? He died hard with a vengeance."

If I need to explain the difference between a John Woo movie and an Eli Roth movie to moviemakers, we're in trouble. If these guys wanted to make a horror movie, who am I to say no? But it would've been nice if they'd said something to us ahead of time. I showed up expecting a brain-candy action movie, not a movie that was going to sear my brain with revolting images that are going to be months in the fading.

One reviewer said "the movie feels like a form of aversion therapy designed to take the fun out of dumb." And another one put it this way, "So gross, brutal and just plain bad that I may never want to see another Jason Statham movie."

So bad, I walked out after five minutes. Yep, you heard me. I walked out of a movie. It was that unwatchable. I went to see Fast & Furious instead. Which was, I assure you, a welcome relief.

Alien vs Predator? Ha!

2009-04-15T19:47:00.000-07:00

This is a match up:

Yes. It's a video. V-I-D-E-O. Click here. Watch it. You know who you are.

Best movie so far... and it's not a movie

2009-04-15T15:20:00.000-07:00

I could be accused of a little bias. I do, after all, know the producer/director.

But trust me when I say, Every Little Step is the best movie I've seen so far this year.

Which, you could argue, isn't saying very much.

So, let me say this. It's an amazing movie. Entertaining, and moving, and interesting, and so well-done. Whether you've seen the original (which I seem to remember seeing as a little girl) or not, seen the revival or not—you know the story. You know the music. But you haven't seen the chorus line behind The Chorus Line.

Look, I'm really not a documentary fan. Same way I'm not a non-fiction fan. But I told you not to skip Michael Lewis' Moneyball, and I'm telling you, this movie is not to be missed. Seriously. I enjoyed it. So go, have a good time!

Oh, and did you hear? They're making Moneyball into a movie. Go figure.

My dad is a math teacher

2009-04-08T17:16:00.001-07:00

Did you know there's a difference between understanding and calculating? Think about it. Or rather, don't.

Exactly.

Turns out we understand proportions—fractions—intuitively. Without having to calculate them. It has something to do with "the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and the prefrontal cortex — [the] brain regions important for processing whole numbers," or so says this week's issue of The Journal of Neuroscience.

Regardless whether the fraction is presented in words or numbers (you know, "1/3" or "one-third"), the subjects in the study responded the same way—appearing to understand the fraction implicitly, rather than needing to calculate it.

Wouldn't it be handy if when your boyfriend started speaking, you understood him implicitly, instead of having to think about what he really meant? I mean, way more useful than fractions. Seriously.

Every time...

2009-04-08T16:50:00.000-07:00

You know somebody's doing something right when you hang up the phone smiling.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're tired of hearing about this already, but I'm just not tired of talking about it. GoDaddy's customer service rocks. I had another question—not a problem, just a question about how to do something—and once again, they came through. I wasn't on hold. I spoke to a nice guy named Jason. And he figured out what the issue was in about 15 minutes. Smart kid.

Smart company.