You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2008.

Project: I found an article today that said a random sampling of men were shown pictures of women either wearing red or framed in red and asked to comment on their attractiveness and how much dough they would lay down on a date with these women. Then, another random sampling of men were shown pictures of the exact same women, but this time wearing or framed in blues, greens, and greys.

Hypothesis: Red is always better!

Results: What did we discover? That all women everywhere should wear red on every date they go on because men apparently will opt for the more expensive bottle of champagne and the extra slice of pie (for we all know you can only judge a good date by the quality of champagne and pie served) because they will find you more attractive. What this little science project didn’t report on, is if red hair has the same effect. While we all know this to be a ubiquitous fact, I’d like science to prove it. For women everywhere can remove their red dresses and shirts and suddenly become less attractive (or possibly more depending on what is beneath those clothes) and less worthy of pie, but I cannot remove my red hair.

Conclusion: Redheads (me) should always be served the best booze and dessert where ever they (I) go.

Science if fun!

(Editor’s Note: I totally just read this and it makes no sense. The booze is affecting my writting skills)

Advertisements

The following is poetic (albeit cheesy) representation of my feelings regarding the fact that it is Friday:

On peanut butter mountain
topped with marshmallow goop,
stands a little chocolate kiss
dancing the loop-E-loop.

Along came a hazel nut
looking oh, so fine,
he gave a wink to the kiss
and asked, “will you be mine”?

The little kiss gave him a sigh
and said “I’m sorry, no can do,
for you see, a chocolate kiss
should never be seen with a nut like you.”

The dejected nut slid down the slope
and found himself left quite aloof;
like he had been one other time
when peanut butter stuck him up on a roof.

The kiss glanced down and said “I’m sorry,
but chocolate is best with peanut butter”.
“I have a friend who may like you;
her name is Carmel chewy chew
and I’ve heard she goes for nuts like you.”

-by Gloria Sarasin

Chocolate always equals happiness for me!

Seriously!! What is wrong with J-Law? Not only does he still have the stash, the weird, spiky hair, AND the revealing chest hair despite the higher neckline, he is now sporting the look of death. Robert Downey Jr., who normally looks a tad bit on the “I’m a kooky actor who is way too serious about my craft,” actually looks normal in this photo beside Mr. Law here. I mean, even RDJ’s half awkward smile is better than the stone cold stare Jude is throwing at the camera.

Forget the impeding implosion of the global economy. Forget North Korea’s nuclear program. Forget the nut job that is running Iran. The apocalypse is here folks because Jude Law is taking the worst photos I’ve ever seen. Ever. We should all be afraid.

What exactly is going on in this picture?

The stash is horrifying! And why is his hair like that (all pointy on one side)? And have you seen the chest hair? And is it just me, or are his sideburns far too long for today’s trends? Obviously I have a problem with every single piece of hair that is exposed in this picture.

Unless he is off to play an “old-timey” traveling medicine man who is actually a con man that preys on lonely widows, I do not accept this as a look for Jude Law. I will also allow it if he has gotten a role as Uncle Bernie, the child molester who drinks too much and talks like Barney from the Simpsons. Other than these two possible situations in which he would be required by his profession to make himself look horrible, I totally reject this version of Jude Law.

Seriously, I’m going to have nightmares about that stash!

This weekend I came across the timeless Spielberg flick Jurassic Park and it got me to thinking about computer graphics and their place in today’s films. It was a little bit of heavy thinking for the weekend, but since it involved movies, I allowed my stream of consciousness to flow free. After some careful consideration and impromptu comparisons, I must say, those dinosaurs look just as good in today’s market as they did 15 years ago (that’s right, Jurassic Park came out 15 years ago!! I knew it was in the 90s, but seriously, that makes me feel old!) Anyway, I only watched about 20 terrifying minutes but I was reminded just how flippin’ scary those dinosaurs are! They are so realistic for graphics done a decade and a half ago. I mean, come on, you have to remember going home after seeing this film in the theaters and being convinced that a raptor was going to learn how to open your front door and sneak a surprise attack on you in the kitchen whilst you made dinner that very night! The headlines the next day would totally read: Girl anticipates fate by attending film; mauled by velocoraptor while making sandwich.

No? You didn’t fear this? Maybe it was just me then (I was 12 years old at the time).

Still, if you haven’t seen it lately, re-watch it for a good time. Spielberg’s dinosaurs really blow the mind when you consider things like King Kong, the Peter Jacksified version, which was produced 12 years after Jurassic Park, yet features a dinosaur fight/chase scene that was so obviously green screened it looks like the effects were done in the backyard of Peter Jackson’s childhood home (i.e. really bad). Now, one could argue that these two films have completely different styles and were attempting to achieve totally separate moods for the audience with their renditions of dinosaurs and blah, blah, blah–whatever. King Kong sucks. Jurassic Park rules. End of story. Spielberg made it seem like he had actually found an island of dinosaurs and decided to make a film there (hey, that’s the plot from King Kong), and if you watch it today, it still feels like there is some freaky island out there where dinosaurs roam free, just waiting to swim across the ocean to attack us in our homes. But there is no way any audience member ever got the feeling that Jackson’s dinosaurs or huge monkey were so real, he must have actually discovered them.

What I’m saying is (and if I was still in grad school would probably write a paper on) is that maybe we should consider the fact that CG effects have removed us from the “reality” of movies. Directors now over use these shots because nothing is out of reach with the use of computers. Well, maybe stuff should be out of reach. Think about Spider-man–most of the swinging through NYC shots look like a video game. Maybe Shia Labeouf doesn’t need to be swinging from the trees a la Tarzan in Indy 4 (Spielberg is obviously not immune), and maybe Yoda doesn’t need to stand up in the Star Wars pre-queals, and maybe . . . I could go on for a while. I’m just saying, if Spielberg could make dinosaurs look real and absolutly terrifying 15 years ago by mixing the magic of computers and some plastic props, what is wrong with directors today?

This is what shaped our young minds:

Martians Meet a Clock

Hey ya’ll–have you seen Britney’s new video for Womanizer (which I have to admit has slowly grown on me and now makes me want to get up and shake my groove thang)? Okay, to start, she looks great now that she’s sans crazy–the world has been reintroduced to the new/old Britney and the world has said “me likey.” But I don’t get this video at all. Well, I suppose I get what they are trying to do, but it makes for some gosh darn horrible video viewing! Why is she naked? I mean, once again, I know why she’s naked–to show off her new/old body in all its new/old tanned and oiled ways–but seriously, the nakedness totally compromises the creative integrity of the video (I can’t believe I just typed that). Its all modern and cold and edgy mixed with naked and wet and steamy–its pointless and distracting! And, did anyone really stop and consider the premise of this little video–Britney is all housewifey in the beginning cooking the alleged womanizer breakfast as he looks over his blackberry (did anyone else notice it was 4/20–again, pointless and distracting). Then, she persists to “temp” said womanizer throughout his work day by photocopying her nether-regions, dry-humping him in the back of a restaurant, and driving his limo in nothing but a tuxedo jacket and a smile. Of course he’s a womanizer!! You continue to throw your naked body at him and then start a freakin’ orgy at his place of work! Why do you torture the men Ms Spears? Why?

But the song rocks! Am I right?