So...
Just how bad is this BP oil spill mess? I know someone in Louisiana right now helping process the Insurance claims resulting from the BP disaster and she says it is far worse than we see on TV. BP has actually closed off many of areas of the beach to the general public and also to news crews (for "safety purposes") so that they can't see some of the worst damage to the coastline. The sections they have opened they have taken to cleaning up before photo ops and going so far as to cover up their spill by bringing in fresh sand to dump over the tarballs washing up onshore. This is clearly an attempt to hide the evidence, if you will. Also, she said the TV is simply unable to capture the awful smell of the beaches now present, which she equated to being at a gas station after someone has let the pump run way over the amount their tank allows, spilling onto the ground and soaking the air with a foul, pungent gasoline scent.
What makes the ordeal worse than just the sights and smells of the spill is how politicians are dealing with it, or it some cases not dealing with it. It bugs me when they latch onto a disaster like this one and use it to advance their chances of reelection or in many, many cases take pot shots at the current administration, rather than simply diving in and getting the job done. Take Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. He has made no efforts to hide his political affiliation and Presidential aspirations. Clearly, if the Republicans were back in power it would help his career goals. So rather than work with the Federal Government, he criticizes and attacks them all day long for things that aren't even under their control, like his accusations that they aren't sending enough National Guardsmen, when in fact he is the one not using the over 2,000 troops at his disposal, and stages cheap photo ops that show him on the beach cleaning the oil or riding out in the boats to investigate the marshes. It's really quite pathetic to see him use this tragedy to advance the Republican and his cause so heavily.
I'm not saying I'm pro or anti Democrat here, but I don't think anyone wants to see this mess turn into another talking point. The Republicans blame Obama for not acting fast enough and compare his handling of the oil spill to Bush's handling of Katrina. Clearly, they are just bitter about all the flak they took for Katrina and are reaching for something... anything they can use to attack the Democrats in the same manner. No one can be ignorant enough to see any similarities between the BP disaster and Katrina. First of all, we knew Katrina was coming. The White House watched it hit and then watched the aftermath... and still took over 3 days to respond even as footage was coming back of people struggling to make it out of New Orleans alive. With the BP spill it was more sudden, and I do agree that the White House should have responded faster and stronger, but with Katrina it was far easier to send in troops to rescue people than with the spill, where people don't need physical rescue, but financial reassurance that their livelihood isn't gone along with the fish. I'm not saying Obama is perfect, if anything this shows the failure with which he selected his cabinet and those surrounding him in the West Wing, such as Rahm Emmanuel, his Chief of Staff, who should never have been hired in the first place. I also feel that this is one area where experience would have helped in the White House, and had Hilary been elected she would have brought a stronger temperament in the Government's response to BP execs. Bottom line, what I don't want to see is Republicans hindering the Democrat's efforts to clean up this mess and help the people of Louisiana. It's not right, and even though the Democrat's came out against Bush for Katrina, they still fought to help deal with it.
I wish that instead of taking a "no, no, no" attitude toward everything Obama wants to do, the Republicans would instead step up to the plate and say they are willing to work with anyone, even the (dun, dun, dun) dreaded Democrats, for the good of the American people. It's called compromise, and we sent you to Washington to figure out a way to help us, not hinder the President. If Obama's policies fail, they will be his policies, and you guys can fall back on that. At least you would have tried something.
Instead, the GOP is acting like cowards, not taking chances simply because they got booted out of office in 2008. They have a policy of do nothing so that Obama is unable to do anything, figuring the American people will get frustrated and kick him out of office during the next election cycle. It's so obvious, too, which makes it that more upsetting. I wish the Republicans would take some responsibility, instead of complaining that all Obama does is blame things on Bush (which he doesn't, at least, not nearly enough considering Bush is responsible for most of the messes the US faces today) and making every little thing a political face-off. By the same token, I wish Obama would stand up and actually do something to get his policies enacted, rather than letting everyone walk all over him. That's where a good Chief of Staff would come in handy in help facilitate all this.
But back to the oil spill, there's sadly nothing we can really do about this one except wait it out and hope BP manages to beat the odds and build a successful relief well. Part of me is afraid we won't have learned out lesson and will soon be back to the "drill, baby, drill!" mentality that got us here in the first place. Already, we have Republican Senators apologizes to BP (thanks a lot, Joe Barton) and quietly remaining pro deep sea drilling, which has clearly proven to be a dangerous, unstable endeavor. What we should be asking is why are countries like China so far ahead of us in terms of energy and alternative fuel sources? Aren't Communists supposed to be the bad guys... why are they getting this right, yet we can't?
I'm also worried that sub-consciously the fact that BP is a British company is an excuse not to make any substantial changes with the oil industry. If it was Exxon or Chevron or Shell who was behind this spill, which I hope people realize it could have easily been, then maybe we would be quicker to put forth stronger sanctions and regulations against the oil companies. But because it's a British company, maybe without even realizing it, I wonder if there is the sort of thought process that this would not have happened had it been an American corporation?
I hope I'm wrong.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Grown Ups quick review
So...
I find it interesting that on the same weekend one of the better movies this year was released (see my previous post), we also saw the unspooling of one of the worst movies so far this year. I'm talking about Grown Ups, which I actually walked out of about forty minutes into a free screening, and I still wanted my money back. Not even the pretty New England forest scenery saved this film, if you can even call it a film, since it essentially boils down to a bunch of past-their-prime comedians sitting around a lake attempting to poke fun at each other.
Sadly, a few days later, I found out I was unable to escape my fate of suffering through this flick, as I ended up at a friends house where he suddenly popped in a studio copy of the film and forced me to sit through it again. He argued that it was one of those movies that was so bad it was funny. Oh, how I wish it were one of those movies. Instead, I was treated to another serving of fail, which began with a nearly twenty minute long funeral (at least, it felt that way) and then saw five childhood friends reunite over the July Fourth weekend at a lakeside cabin. The funeral is awkward and it just goes downhill from there. Even for a comedy, the scenes have little transition from one to the next, which makes the movie jarring at times. Worse, sometimes the scenes serve little purpose but to advertise various products, such as a certain Southern Fried Chicken brand.
You would think that with all the so called talent in Grown Ups (Adam Sandler, Kevin James, David Spade, Rob Schneider) there would be at least one LOL scene. Unfortunately, half the time the cast seems asleep. The rest of the time I can't tell if the jokes are being improvised or if someone actually wrote this crap. Too bad for Adam Sandler, since he is credited with the screenplay he loses either way. Even poor Chris Rock gets wasted in a role that seems like it was scripted for someone else, and then at the last minute someone decided they had better put a black man into the movie.
What does constitute for humor is often a mixture of jokes we have seen one too many times already over the past few years. Male nudity? Check. Fat guy falling down for no reason? Check. Fat guy eating anything he can get his hands on? Check. Old guys hitting on hot teenage girls? Check.
Most of these "jokes' don't even make any sense, such as when David Spade refuses to wear any pants when he wakes up in the morning at the rented house the grown ups are all staying at, his reason being that he has to wear them at home. Okay, so you live alone at home and, what, force yourself to wear pants there, but when you are staying with friends and their families (including little kids) you refuse to wear pants at their house? It's like the filmmakers were forced to put in a shot of a man's bare ass because both The Hangover and Forgetting Sarah Marshall did it, even if it makes even less sense here than it did in those movies.
Is it asking too much for these comedies to create their jokes out of logic and character, rather than just tossing them out blindly and bending the story around them? Even logic, though, may not have helped Grown Ups, as the film has little in the way of character to go with it. Adam Sandler, for example, is introduced as a tough Hollywood agent who spends the first few minutes yelling at someone on the phone, threatening to pull Julia Roberts out of the other man's picture. In the very next scene, though, he is am entirely different person, patient and loving. I found myself even asking why the movie bothered to show us his job, since it doesn't gel with his character from then on, especially the part where he sticks his finger up another man's butt (I kid you not). Maybe I was over-thinking Grown Ups, but I was honestly so bored that I couldn't help getting lost in my thoughts. The alternative, of course, was to watch the movie.
Best viewed: Don't.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Knight and Day quick review
So...
I saw Knight and Day this weekend. It is easily the best film so far this summer and one of the best of this year. Basically, it's the perfect summer movie, with the right mix of action, adventure, romance and comedy. I had so much fun watching this movie and not knowing where the story was headed next that it felt like I had just stepped off a roller coaster when I walked out of the theater... or more appropriate to the movie, an out of control 747. A lot of that had to do with the amazing stunt work that essentially left my jaw on the floor for most of the film. Tom Cruise did an outstanding job with the action scenes. In fact, I haven't seen someone that spry since Daniel Craig went leaping around from place to place in the last two James Bond movies.
Cruise plays a man of mystery who sweeps Cameron Diaz off her feet when he saves her life early on and in doing so inadvertantly gets her caught up in a dangerous chase between spies. If that sounds like the plot of a James Bond movie, that's probably not far off. Only unlike the James Bond series, this film lets its hair down and its bow tie loose.
The script also features a few little story beats (which I won't spoil) that were particularly ingenious ways to get our characters from point A to point B that I can't believe we haven't seen before in a movie. The two stars themselves, Cruise and Diaz, felt natural together, with chemistry that leapt off the screen via some witty back and forth banter. They actually made the romance stuff as much fun as the "ohhhh, look, they blew up a chopper" stuff, no easy feat in a movie season known for asking audiences to shut off their brains. And not once did I even come close to thinking about Tom Cruise's recent off screen behavior, something I can't say I felt when sitting through his last big screen adventure, Mission Impossible 3.
That's because the screenplay is easily one of Cruise's best since A Few Good Men, and really gives him a chance to shine, reminding us why he is the movie star that he is. It's also because Cruise is working with a director at the top of his game, and everyone involved obviously cares about making a great movie, not just turning in something acceptable to meet the studio's deadlines.
But it isn't just Cruise who excels here. Diaz also throws herself (sometimes literally) into the role of your average tomboy next door mixed up in the spy game, and in the end we have a movie that appeals to women as much as men. Unfortunately, the studio screwed around with the film's release date so much that most people aren't even aware it opened this weekend. The brass sold the movie and not the date, something Toy Story 3 avoided the weekend before. I expect this movie to open soft as a result of this and subsequently turn people off because, as we all know, when a movie opens soft audiences take it as a sign that it isn't a very good film. A shame because I strongly recommend this one as smart, fun adult fare.
Best viewed: opening weekend.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Random Photo Day! Everything you need to know about LA.
So...
Look close. This photo pretty much sums up Los Angeles.
Why I'm not going to Comic-con this year.
So...
The San Diego... er, I'm sorry, International Comic-con is coming up in less than a month now. This is actually the first year in quite some time I won't be attending. Though it's always been a blast, over the years it has gotten a little too chaotic. The convention floor is usually a fun place to roam and check out all the merchandise for sale, or in some cases, simply being given away by studios desperate for geek buzz and free promotion. There's also a ton of freaky and/or hot denizens dressed up in super cool costumes to be on the watch for. One year I saw an entire army of Slave Princess Leia's, a man dressed as Spiderman villain Electro using a machine he built that could zap people if they got too close, and a girl with a missing leg who went as Rose MacGowen from the movie Grindhouse: Planet Zombie (the chick with the machine gun leg). But in recent years it's gotten so crowded you can barely walk the floor and see this stuff. I guess I needed a break this year.
Or maybe it was the 2010 offering of panels that failed to entice me into going. In years past, the con has offered up some pretty cool TV shows coming into town to hock their goodies via cast and creators showcasing clips, sneak peeks and Q and A sessions. Shows like Lost, Heroes, X-Files, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. This year we have... White Collar, Glee, Bones, Castle, and Community?? Huh? Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how any of those shows relate to the pop culture, comic book, scifi/fantasy theme of comic-con. Are they just letting anyone into this thing these days?
To be fair, there are a few shows coming that are more in the vein of traditional comic-con programming. There's V, Spartacus, Vampire Diaries and Eureka. But, with the exception of maybe Eureka, those shows just aren't any good. Nowhere near the draws that Lost and Battlestar Galactica were, to be certain.
On one hand it's cool that the con has gotten so mainstream and studios have finally caught on to this marketing bonanza, but on the other hand there is the fine line of what is acceptable for promotion at an event called Comic-Con. We all know the studios have no discretion, so the con organizers should take some responsibility over what they allow into their halls for promotion, especially since the event isn't exactly free. In fact, many people travel from all over the world to go to this event, booking hotel and airfare to do so. Does anyone really think they come all this way to see Glee or White Collar or Spartacus?
In any case, I plan to be back next year. Hopefully the programming will have improved. If not, there's always plenty of free loot to pick up.
The San Diego... er, I'm sorry, International Comic-con is coming up in less than a month now. This is actually the first year in quite some time I won't be attending. Though it's always been a blast, over the years it has gotten a little too chaotic. The convention floor is usually a fun place to roam and check out all the merchandise for sale, or in some cases, simply being given away by studios desperate for geek buzz and free promotion. There's also a ton of freaky and/or hot denizens dressed up in super cool costumes to be on the watch for. One year I saw an entire army of Slave Princess Leia's, a man dressed as Spiderman villain Electro using a machine he built that could zap people if they got too close, and a girl with a missing leg who went as Rose MacGowen from the movie Grindhouse: Planet Zombie (the chick with the machine gun leg). But in recent years it's gotten so crowded you can barely walk the floor and see this stuff. I guess I needed a break this year.
Or maybe it was the 2010 offering of panels that failed to entice me into going. In years past, the con has offered up some pretty cool TV shows coming into town to hock their goodies via cast and creators showcasing clips, sneak peeks and Q and A sessions. Shows like Lost, Heroes, X-Files, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. This year we have... White Collar, Glee, Bones, Castle, and Community?? Huh? Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how any of those shows relate to the pop culture, comic book, scifi/fantasy theme of comic-con. Are they just letting anyone into this thing these days?
To be fair, there are a few shows coming that are more in the vein of traditional comic-con programming. There's V, Spartacus, Vampire Diaries and Eureka. But, with the exception of maybe Eureka, those shows just aren't any good. Nowhere near the draws that Lost and Battlestar Galactica were, to be certain.
On one hand it's cool that the con has gotten so mainstream and studios have finally caught on to this marketing bonanza, but on the other hand there is the fine line of what is acceptable for promotion at an event called Comic-Con. We all know the studios have no discretion, so the con organizers should take some responsibility over what they allow into their halls for promotion, especially since the event isn't exactly free. In fact, many people travel from all over the world to go to this event, booking hotel and airfare to do so. Does anyone really think they come all this way to see Glee or White Collar or Spartacus?
In any case, I plan to be back next year. Hopefully the programming will have improved. If not, there's always plenty of free loot to pick up.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Politicians make great criminals, and criminals make great cable news anchors.
So...
Today CNN announced that disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer will be getting his own show on their Primetime lineup, wedged in with Larry King and Anderson Cooper. The word that comes to mind is pathetic. I'd heard CNN's ratings were in the crapper, but are they so desperate as to tarnish their reputation as a legitimate, independent (as opposed to Right Wing Fox and Leftist MSBBC) news organization by hiring a criminal to push his viewpoints and agendas on viewers. Honestly, whatever he has to say will be clouded by his scandal involving using public money to fund his prostitution fueled adventures. Do viewers really have that short of a memory. And what happens when the next political sex scandal inevitably boils to the surface? Does Spitzer refrain from commenting or does he simply invite the offender on his show to give him some good publicity, the way CNN has done with him. In a sense, CNN is as much of a whore as the hookers... er, I'm sorry, "escorts", Spitzer hired while in office, paying him for a little ratings attention and quick income from new commercial opportunities.
I guess controversy and criminal charges is the way someone gets a job in news these days. But be careful, politicians thinking of going into the news field, and make sure you "step out" with a bonafide female hooker or you could end up shunned like Larry Craig or Mark Foley, who cheated with men instead of women. Apparently, there is a line someone in news has decided it is or isn't acceptable to cross. I guess it's okay to have an affair if you are a Democrat, but not a Republican. In the case of Republicans, however, it is acceptable to be a racist. Just ask Pat Buchanan, who is now a commentator for MSNBC news. Speaking of MSNBC, what about Rod Blagojevich, who is currently standing trial for attempting to sell President Obama's vacant Illinois Senate seat to the highest bidder? He's now a pundit for the network. I have to wonder, since NBC has been courting him so heavily for their reality programming, are they attempting to legitimize him for viewers - after his name has been so heavily tarnished - by putting him on MSNBC, just so they can score ratings points on their man network, NBC, which features him on its reality shows? I also find it both disgusting and ironic that after MSNBC had countless news stories about what a crook he was, they now use him as a go-to speaker about some of the most important political issues. I guess it all depends on what sells. At the time they needed him to be the bad guy because that's what was selling ad space. Now, they decide the guy they turned into such a controversial figure could be a ratings boon for them. But wait, if he is going to be on Celebrity Apprentice, we don't want to tarnish that brand by putting on a crook... I know, let's put him back on MSNBC, only this time cast him as a political insight with a unique viewpoint on various topics!
I guess the easy solution is to not watch. But darn it, if this trend keeps up I won't have anywhere to turn to for actual news.
Today CNN announced that disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer will be getting his own show on their Primetime lineup, wedged in with Larry King and Anderson Cooper. The word that comes to mind is pathetic. I'd heard CNN's ratings were in the crapper, but are they so desperate as to tarnish their reputation as a legitimate, independent (as opposed to Right Wing Fox and Leftist MSBBC) news organization by hiring a criminal to push his viewpoints and agendas on viewers. Honestly, whatever he has to say will be clouded by his scandal involving using public money to fund his prostitution fueled adventures. Do viewers really have that short of a memory. And what happens when the next political sex scandal inevitably boils to the surface? Does Spitzer refrain from commenting or does he simply invite the offender on his show to give him some good publicity, the way CNN has done with him. In a sense, CNN is as much of a whore as the hookers... er, I'm sorry, "escorts", Spitzer hired while in office, paying him for a little ratings attention and quick income from new commercial opportunities.
I guess controversy and criminal charges is the way someone gets a job in news these days. But be careful, politicians thinking of going into the news field, and make sure you "step out" with a bonafide female hooker or you could end up shunned like Larry Craig or Mark Foley, who cheated with men instead of women. Apparently, there is a line someone in news has decided it is or isn't acceptable to cross. I guess it's okay to have an affair if you are a Democrat, but not a Republican. In the case of Republicans, however, it is acceptable to be a racist. Just ask Pat Buchanan, who is now a commentator for MSNBC news. Speaking of MSNBC, what about Rod Blagojevich, who is currently standing trial for attempting to sell President Obama's vacant Illinois Senate seat to the highest bidder? He's now a pundit for the network. I have to wonder, since NBC has been courting him so heavily for their reality programming, are they attempting to legitimize him for viewers - after his name has been so heavily tarnished - by putting him on MSNBC, just so they can score ratings points on their man network, NBC, which features him on its reality shows? I also find it both disgusting and ironic that after MSNBC had countless news stories about what a crook he was, they now use him as a go-to speaker about some of the most important political issues. I guess it all depends on what sells. At the time they needed him to be the bad guy because that's what was selling ad space. Now, they decide the guy they turned into such a controversial figure could be a ratings boon for them. But wait, if he is going to be on Celebrity Apprentice, we don't want to tarnish that brand by putting on a crook... I know, let's put him back on MSNBC, only this time cast him as a political insight with a unique viewpoint on various topics!
I guess the easy solution is to not watch. But darn it, if this trend keeps up I won't have anywhere to turn to for actual news.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The A-Team quick review
So...
Here's another movie I saw recently, one I actually was hoping would turn out better than it looked... a sort of Charlie's Angels with dudes. Well, I can say that The A-Team definitely has it's moments, both good and bad. On the good side we have Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, "Rampage" Jackson and the lead dude from District 9 (you know, the guy who slowly turns into an alien) all giving it their best. There are some enjoyable scenes with them working together as a team, hamming it up and tossing off one-liners as they wrestle their way through impossible situations, such as one set piece where they escape from a crashing plane by climbing into a tank in the plane's cargo hold and then sailing the tank (thanks to some well placed parachutes) out of the airplane to avoid going down with it. Now, if that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, well then, this movie definitely isn't for you. But if you don't mind over-the-top action that defies all logic, you may find this a decent two hour excursion.
Like most of the movie, the "airtank" scene is loud and rambunctious, filled with about a million different things going on, or in some cases off, at once. At times, the soundtrack is so jumbled that you can hardly make out what anyone is saying, especially those aforementioned one-liners. That's okay, the dialogue throughout is rather weak ("They specialize in the ridiculous" is one gem I happen to remember), so the one-liners here probably weren't all that great anyway. And despite all the noise the movie makes, it doesn't really have that much to say. It's not exactly a new story and the director clearly doesn't have anything new to add to the genre the way he did with his previous work (Shootin' Aces, Narc). Instead, he tries to honor the original TV show it's based on, clumsily most of the time, and bring in a more conventional studio-friendly movie.
What does work, again, is the team interplay. It's fun to watch as our heroes navigate a twisty plot that aims to be a bit more complex than your usual summer fare. While not quite up to the clever adaptation that was Charlie's Angels, it does connect a bit more than many of it's counterparts.
Best viewed: first week rental.
Robin Hood quick review
So...
I saw a couple of movies recently. The first was Robin Hood, which I very much enjoyed. Going in, it was a movie I was not at all excited about seeing and, in fact, probably uttered a groan or two about whenever a preview came up on the TV. First of all, I'm a proud fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood incarnation, which is as near perfect a Robin Hood movie as Hollywood has ever made. And this new version from director Ridley Scott didn't look anything like Robin Hood, which, for my money, is all about high adventure, not bloody warfare, as the previews for this new take indicate it containing. There's also the "why factor" as in "why make another Robin Hood, Hollywood?" I have seen first hand how cowardly the executives here are as they pass up original script after original script in favor of something with a brand name.
I guess I shouldn't have underestimated the brilliance of Ridley Scott, though. If anyone can take a "been there, done that" property and fashion something creative out of it, it is he. With Robin Hood, he has crafted a story that is unique to the mythos of Robin Hood (in a surprisingly good way) and which actually works better if you take everything you know about Robin Hood and toss it out in favor of being open to a new portrayl that retains only some of the ingredients of the Robin Hood legend we all know and love. In fact, this new take is actually somewhat hampered by the title "Robin Hood" itself. While it may bring attention and name recognition, audiences might be disappointed to learn that instead of the merry men and the Sheriff of Nottingham, for example, they are given a band of decidedly un-merry ex-soldiers and a traitorous new villain, portrayed with much gravitas by Marc Strong. Also, in place of the usual Robin Hood ho-hum story we get what amounts to a "loose" prequel, which retells the backstory of Robin Hood, with a few new twists and turns thrown in for good measure. For instance, Robin is now a solider who sneaks away from the Crusades by assuming the identity of a dead Knight. Maid Marion is the dead man's headstrong wife, who eventually links up with her husband's impersonator in order to save her village from a corrupt new King.
The movie has a good deal of well-choreographed action (think Gladiator with crossbows) and strong performances to back that action up. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Robin and Marion, specifically, are a hoot to watch get together. The film's run time is long, but thanks to an excellent score and brisk editing it doesn't feel it. The ending, sadly, is a bit anti-climactic, but still left me wanting to see what's next for this new "Robin Hood."
Best viewed: a Saturday matinee at the theater.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Top 5 things about LA.
So...
The easier list by far is to pick out 5 things about LA that suck. I mean, there's so many options to choose from that narrowing it down would best involve sticking up a city map and throwing darts at it and then just talking about whatever spot the dart lands on. That said, certain aspects of Los Angeles do have their charm and so I thought I would list off 5 things about LA that really stand out. These 5 things alone are reason enough to justify living in this over-hyped, over-crazed, over-blown smogtown. So without further ado...
1. Griffith Observatory. If you go at night it offers an unobstructed view of the entire LA skyline. If you go on a clear night you almost forget about the abundance of smog infecting your lungs. And if you go early enough you can take a peek at the cosmos through their impressively large telescope. When I went, the lens was pointed directly at Saturn and I could make out several of that planet's over 65 moons and, of course, it's famous rings. The word spectacular doesn't even begin the describe the feeling of climbing up the stairs in the observation dome and seeing another world as an astrologist tells you all kinds of interesting facts about our galaxy. In addition to the center's telescopes, there are tons of cool exhibits and displays to check out and you can even touch various rocks from the moon and Mars. I also thought it was cool to weigh myself at different stops to find out what I would weigh on various neighboring planets, including Pluto, which despite recent controversy, the Observatory insists is a planet. As if all that isn't enough, the have a planetarium that shows no less that three different movies on any given day. My advise is to go on a warm summer night, but plan to get their by sunset so you have enough time to see all the exhibits and get tickets to the planetarium show, as they usually sell out.
2. Malibu. Despite the illusion that LA has perfect beaches, most of them are covered with crap or are located next to either an airport or a smoke tower spewing God knows what into the atmosphere. If you head Northwest you can even get a view of some lovely oil rigs off the shore. Beautiful! But in Malibu they actually do have a white sand beach, nestled in a quiet little cove that, after, like most everything else in LA, you pay your 15 bucks for parking, you can walk down to and spend the next 4 hours relaxing at (or 8 if you have another 15 bucks). Duke's Restaurant in Malibu is pretty sweet, too. It offers great dining with a perfect view of the ocean because, well, you are literally sitting on the beach. When I went no less than three whales breached the surface of the water just beyond our table as they made their way North. The only downside is the water is frigid 99% of the time so forget about going in without a wetsuit.
3. Venice Boardwalk. I wouldn't recommend going in the water here, either, not because it's usually cold, but because it's always dirty (a staple of most LA beaches). However, if you do go in the water I recommend bringing a surfboard and going to Washington Street, where the waves are pretty consistent. At the boardwalk itself, it's fun to people watch and simply walk the sidewalks investigating all the junk people are trying to peddle. Once in a while you might even find something worth buying, like some great sidewalk-sold art. I like taking a bike and bypassing all the slower skateboarders and rollerbladers. The posh ultra-modern beachside houses are fun to look at, as well.
4. Hollywood Bowl. An oasis in Hollywood from the congestion of people, cars, noise and general headache. One of the best concert venues around, with great views from any seat and great sound everywhere. The variety of acts range from Tom Petty to African tribal music to John Williams. Don't feel like sitting in an actual seat? Bring a picnic basket and stretch out on the back lawn.
5. And finally my favorite thing about LA is it's proximity to other, better cities like San Diego and Orange County (where Disneyland is at).
The easier list by far is to pick out 5 things about LA that suck. I mean, there's so many options to choose from that narrowing it down would best involve sticking up a city map and throwing darts at it and then just talking about whatever spot the dart lands on. That said, certain aspects of Los Angeles do have their charm and so I thought I would list off 5 things about LA that really stand out. These 5 things alone are reason enough to justify living in this over-hyped, over-crazed, over-blown smogtown. So without further ado...
1. Griffith Observatory. If you go at night it offers an unobstructed view of the entire LA skyline. If you go on a clear night you almost forget about the abundance of smog infecting your lungs. And if you go early enough you can take a peek at the cosmos through their impressively large telescope. When I went, the lens was pointed directly at Saturn and I could make out several of that planet's over 65 moons and, of course, it's famous rings. The word spectacular doesn't even begin the describe the feeling of climbing up the stairs in the observation dome and seeing another world as an astrologist tells you all kinds of interesting facts about our galaxy. In addition to the center's telescopes, there are tons of cool exhibits and displays to check out and you can even touch various rocks from the moon and Mars. I also thought it was cool to weigh myself at different stops to find out what I would weigh on various neighboring planets, including Pluto, which despite recent controversy, the Observatory insists is a planet. As if all that isn't enough, the have a planetarium that shows no less that three different movies on any given day. My advise is to go on a warm summer night, but plan to get their by sunset so you have enough time to see all the exhibits and get tickets to the planetarium show, as they usually sell out.
2. Malibu. Despite the illusion that LA has perfect beaches, most of them are covered with crap or are located next to either an airport or a smoke tower spewing God knows what into the atmosphere. If you head Northwest you can even get a view of some lovely oil rigs off the shore. Beautiful! But in Malibu they actually do have a white sand beach, nestled in a quiet little cove that, after, like most everything else in LA, you pay your 15 bucks for parking, you can walk down to and spend the next 4 hours relaxing at (or 8 if you have another 15 bucks). Duke's Restaurant in Malibu is pretty sweet, too. It offers great dining with a perfect view of the ocean because, well, you are literally sitting on the beach. When I went no less than three whales breached the surface of the water just beyond our table as they made their way North. The only downside is the water is frigid 99% of the time so forget about going in without a wetsuit.
3. Venice Boardwalk. I wouldn't recommend going in the water here, either, not because it's usually cold, but because it's always dirty (a staple of most LA beaches). However, if you do go in the water I recommend bringing a surfboard and going to Washington Street, where the waves are pretty consistent. At the boardwalk itself, it's fun to people watch and simply walk the sidewalks investigating all the junk people are trying to peddle. Once in a while you might even find something worth buying, like some great sidewalk-sold art. I like taking a bike and bypassing all the slower skateboarders and rollerbladers. The posh ultra-modern beachside houses are fun to look at, as well.
4. Hollywood Bowl. An oasis in Hollywood from the congestion of people, cars, noise and general headache. One of the best concert venues around, with great views from any seat and great sound everywhere. The variety of acts range from Tom Petty to African tribal music to John Williams. Don't feel like sitting in an actual seat? Bring a picnic basket and stretch out on the back lawn.
5. And finally my favorite thing about LA is it's proximity to other, better cities like San Diego and Orange County (where Disneyland is at).
Monday, June 7, 2010
Why I heart San Diego.
So...
This weekend I went to San Diego. I usually go there about 3 times a year, and would go even more time allowing. It's such a beautiful seaside community, a community being something more than just a simple city, like Los Angeles. San Diego's essentially a big city with the heart of a small coastal town. The people are beyond friendly, plus, with two major colleges in the area, there is a large population of young adults, particularly in the hip Pacific Beach area. There is also a large military presence that adds to the uniqueness of San Diego, and TONS of pristine beaches, parks, hiking and biking trails and other outdoor-centric activities.
SD additionally has one of the best, most accessible and cleanest downtowns I have ever been to. In most cities Downtown is either an overgrown business park or a dirty, dingy place to be avoided at all costs. In San Diego, it is a four-star destination, an urban hotspot, updated to preserve the historic brick buildings, but with a contempory flare, and full of shopping, theaters, great eateries and other attractions. At night, in the Gaslamp district, the people watching makes for a journey onto itself, particularly if there is a convention in town, like the annual San Diego International Comic Con. I love walking the streets and just not knowing where I'll end up. In Downtown San Diego, you can do that while feeling perfectly safe. And if you ever get tired, they have bike-taxis that will take you back to your car or hotel for between 5 to 10 bucks.
The San Diego Zoo is located not far from downtown and is simply one of the best zoos in the world and hands down the best in the US. To say it is HUGE is an understatement. You could easily spend the day there and still not see everything. You can get lost in the "lost jungle," as they call the area where the tigers, hippos and various exotic monkeys are housed. Tired of the lush foilage, visit the Arctic region, where polar bears riegn supreme and, for the kiddies, there's a mysterious polar bear cave they can explore and crawl around in pretending to be a bear themselves. There is a kid's section of the zoo that has a bug house and, near that, is a reptile house the adults will enjoy too, where the Zoo keeps all kids of venomous snakes you can get up close and personal with, like the spitting King Cobra and a Santa Catalina rattlesnake, which is found only on one island in all the world and is extra special for it's lack of rattles (ironic because it is, after all, a rattlesnake).
I love the way the shopping and dining blends seamlessly into the Zoo, such as the treehouse cafe or the African bazaar, which is modelled after a trading village and is nestled in between thick vegetation so that, for a moment in time, you might feel like you have stepped into another world. If you don't feel like walking, you can always take an air tram from one side of the Zoo to the other, the kind like they used to have at Disneyland. The air tram is a "cool" way to get an overview of the zoo and downtown San Diego at large. There's also a fun double decker bus that zips you around and affords a unique perspective on most of the popular animal denizens.
Other things I recommend doing in SD are checking out Balboa Park, Seaport Village, Coronado Island and also taking a haunted history of San Diego tour, where, at night, a tour guide will show you around various macabre parts of the city.
One thing I strongly advise against doing, though, is going to Tijuana, the Mexican town on the other side of the California border. For one, it's a shithole. It's disgusting and, unless you are into donkey shows, there is absolutely nothing to do there except walk around and look at the same thing over and over. Seriously, it feels like the same three people selling crappy trinkets on the same block no matter how far you walk. It's a deja vu nightmare. And then, when you do decide to get the heck outta dodge, you have to wait 3 to 4 hours in the same line to cross back over the border with Mexican citizens visiting the United States. There is no separate US citizens line, even though Mexican citizens make up like 85% of the line. If you are driving, expect at even longer wait.
IMO, if you want to see a much better border town go to Nogales just outside of Tucson, Arizona. It's quieter, cleaner and the architecture is much more visually arresting.
There is literally so much more to explore in San Diego, though... so much so that it would be impossible to blog about it all in one post. It's definitely one thing I will miss about Southern California.
This weekend I went to San Diego. I usually go there about 3 times a year, and would go even more time allowing. It's such a beautiful seaside community, a community being something more than just a simple city, like Los Angeles. San Diego's essentially a big city with the heart of a small coastal town. The people are beyond friendly, plus, with two major colleges in the area, there is a large population of young adults, particularly in the hip Pacific Beach area. There is also a large military presence that adds to the uniqueness of San Diego, and TONS of pristine beaches, parks, hiking and biking trails and other outdoor-centric activities.
SD additionally has one of the best, most accessible and cleanest downtowns I have ever been to. In most cities Downtown is either an overgrown business park or a dirty, dingy place to be avoided at all costs. In San Diego, it is a four-star destination, an urban hotspot, updated to preserve the historic brick buildings, but with a contempory flare, and full of shopping, theaters, great eateries and other attractions. At night, in the Gaslamp district, the people watching makes for a journey onto itself, particularly if there is a convention in town, like the annual San Diego International Comic Con. I love walking the streets and just not knowing where I'll end up. In Downtown San Diego, you can do that while feeling perfectly safe. And if you ever get tired, they have bike-taxis that will take you back to your car or hotel for between 5 to 10 bucks.
The San Diego Zoo is located not far from downtown and is simply one of the best zoos in the world and hands down the best in the US. To say it is HUGE is an understatement. You could easily spend the day there and still not see everything. You can get lost in the "lost jungle," as they call the area where the tigers, hippos and various exotic monkeys are housed. Tired of the lush foilage, visit the Arctic region, where polar bears riegn supreme and, for the kiddies, there's a mysterious polar bear cave they can explore and crawl around in pretending to be a bear themselves. There is a kid's section of the zoo that has a bug house and, near that, is a reptile house the adults will enjoy too, where the Zoo keeps all kids of venomous snakes you can get up close and personal with, like the spitting King Cobra and a Santa Catalina rattlesnake, which is found only on one island in all the world and is extra special for it's lack of rattles (ironic because it is, after all, a rattlesnake).
I love the way the shopping and dining blends seamlessly into the Zoo, such as the treehouse cafe or the African bazaar, which is modelled after a trading village and is nestled in between thick vegetation so that, for a moment in time, you might feel like you have stepped into another world. If you don't feel like walking, you can always take an air tram from one side of the Zoo to the other, the kind like they used to have at Disneyland. The air tram is a "cool" way to get an overview of the zoo and downtown San Diego at large. There's also a fun double decker bus that zips you around and affords a unique perspective on most of the popular animal denizens.
Other things I recommend doing in SD are checking out Balboa Park, Seaport Village, Coronado Island and also taking a haunted history of San Diego tour, where, at night, a tour guide will show you around various macabre parts of the city.
One thing I strongly advise against doing, though, is going to Tijuana, the Mexican town on the other side of the California border. For one, it's a shithole. It's disgusting and, unless you are into donkey shows, there is absolutely nothing to do there except walk around and look at the same thing over and over. Seriously, it feels like the same three people selling crappy trinkets on the same block no matter how far you walk. It's a deja vu nightmare. And then, when you do decide to get the heck outta dodge, you have to wait 3 to 4 hours in the same line to cross back over the border with Mexican citizens visiting the United States. There is no separate US citizens line, even though Mexican citizens make up like 85% of the line. If you are driving, expect at even longer wait.
IMO, if you want to see a much better border town go to Nogales just outside of Tucson, Arizona. It's quieter, cleaner and the architecture is much more visually arresting.
There is literally so much more to explore in San Diego, though... so much so that it would be impossible to blog about it all in one post. It's definitely one thing I will miss about Southern California.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Best TV series finales of the last decade.
So...
With both 24 and Lost ending recently there has been a lot of talk in the news lately about series finales. Which ones are the best? Which are the worst? Today, I'm going to talk about the best series finales of the past decade because, frankly, I think pretty much every news source has left off some amazing series enders. This list is in no particular order, by the way.
1. Monk. This mostly undiscovered gem of a show basically put USA on the map as a serious network and inspired their whole "characters first" approach to TV. It also led to the very similar and way inferior Psych. The Monk series finale is on this list because it expertly wrapped up the mystery of who killed Monk's wife, a mystery that has been a big part of the show since episode one, and dealt with Monk's OCD in a way that brought closure, but didn't feel like Monk wouldn't be Monk anymore. Every other supporting character also got a great send-off that wasn't shoehorned in at the last minute, but rather built up from little bits and pieces here and there seen throughout the shows' history.
2. The Shield. The finale for this show was really an extension of the series and taken on it's own it's a credit that it's as awesome as it is. Six seasons worth of storytelling boiled to a head in a sad, yet satisfying ending that would make Shakespeare proud.
3. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The second of three Star Trek spin-offs (and the darker, more "realistic" of the Star Treks) that popped up in the late nineties, this series technically closed shop in 1999, but it's such a brilliant finale that I had to included it on this list. I love the way this finale took the two big mythological elements of this show and managed to do the impossible by winding them down together and making them feel connected. I also loved that all the characters (I lost count at 13) got the proper send-offs they deserved and that everything was wrapped up in a bow without feeling forced. Another thing this finale did which all finales should take note of: the show ended in a way that brought total closure for the characters, but left the viewer with a feeling that a new journey was beginning for them. One door closes, another one opens.
4. 24. After an uneven season, 24 heated up when Dana Walsh was ID'd as a mole and Jack Bauer finally went rogue, realizing that the greater good he always fought for was no longer being served by the White House and it's Commander in Chief. I loved that this finale was all about Jack, even though he really didn't appear in it too much. Also, the final scene between him and Chloe was fittingly emotional given that this is 24 we are talking about.
5. Lost. A lot of people seem to be a little disappointed that this finale didn't wrap up more of the island mythology, but, personally, I like that it gave us enough hints to be able to puzzle out answers to most of the questions for ourselves and left the others open for plenty of debate and interpretation. How long before we have a Lost 101 class at some prestigious Ivy league school where the final grade includes an essay on what the smoke monster really is?
6. Rome. A series that was cancelled after two seasons by all accounts shouldn't have even had time to give itself a good, let alone great finale. But that's where you can tell good writers from bad ones. This finale really hit home just what fans were going to miss with the loss of this well-crafted, intriguing drama. I like this finale because it had a lot of smart, subtle nods to previous episodes, such as Pullo's realization about being a secret father and Cleopatra pulling the wool over Marc Antony's eyes.
7. Friends. A little forced with the whole Ross-Rachel will they/won't they drama finally getting resolved after, what, 10 long seasons. But the Chandler-Monica plot was top notch, and Joey and Phoebe were game for a few great last lines. Plus, it's nice to see an ending that leaves it's characters in a good, happy place.
8. Sex and the City. The season leading up to this finale was probably the weakest, but the resolution was sweet. All the characters were in a better place and seemed to have found what they were looking for over the course of the show. That is, until the movie came along and ruined everything!
9. Scrubs (the first time). Even though ABC decided to bring this comedy back after the fact as a kind of spin-off, the original finale was so darn good that no one bothered to tune in after that because it felt like it was all over. The finale was funny, moving and had JD coming to a few good realizations about his life based on another day at the hospital. In short, it was pretty much like any other episode of this witty little show.
10. ER. Bringing back all the original characters gave this finale closure by making the episode feel like it was coming full circle, but I like the way it really just played out like yet another day at the hospital, which, to the characters, it was. A lot of shows try to use this formula for their finales, but ER is one of the rare exceptions where it succeeds beautifully.
11. Alias. This show started to go down hill halfway through season three when they introduced Sydney's "long lost" sister. It was a desperate attempt to find some kind of replacement character to hang the show on should Jennifer Garner decide to walk away, which she, thankfully, didn't. Two and a half years later that sister was dead, leading up to the ultimate fate for her father and killer and series baddie Arvin Sloan. This finale had a few surprising deaths on the good guy side as well, but ended happily with out two favorite heroes, Sydney and Vaughan, reunited and essentially riding off into the sunset together.
With both 24 and Lost ending recently there has been a lot of talk in the news lately about series finales. Which ones are the best? Which are the worst? Today, I'm going to talk about the best series finales of the past decade because, frankly, I think pretty much every news source has left off some amazing series enders. This list is in no particular order, by the way.
1. Monk. This mostly undiscovered gem of a show basically put USA on the map as a serious network and inspired their whole "characters first" approach to TV. It also led to the very similar and way inferior Psych. The Monk series finale is on this list because it expertly wrapped up the mystery of who killed Monk's wife, a mystery that has been a big part of the show since episode one, and dealt with Monk's OCD in a way that brought closure, but didn't feel like Monk wouldn't be Monk anymore. Every other supporting character also got a great send-off that wasn't shoehorned in at the last minute, but rather built up from little bits and pieces here and there seen throughout the shows' history.
2. The Shield. The finale for this show was really an extension of the series and taken on it's own it's a credit that it's as awesome as it is. Six seasons worth of storytelling boiled to a head in a sad, yet satisfying ending that would make Shakespeare proud.
3. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The second of three Star Trek spin-offs (and the darker, more "realistic" of the Star Treks) that popped up in the late nineties, this series technically closed shop in 1999, but it's such a brilliant finale that I had to included it on this list. I love the way this finale took the two big mythological elements of this show and managed to do the impossible by winding them down together and making them feel connected. I also loved that all the characters (I lost count at 13) got the proper send-offs they deserved and that everything was wrapped up in a bow without feeling forced. Another thing this finale did which all finales should take note of: the show ended in a way that brought total closure for the characters, but left the viewer with a feeling that a new journey was beginning for them. One door closes, another one opens.
4. 24. After an uneven season, 24 heated up when Dana Walsh was ID'd as a mole and Jack Bauer finally went rogue, realizing that the greater good he always fought for was no longer being served by the White House and it's Commander in Chief. I loved that this finale was all about Jack, even though he really didn't appear in it too much. Also, the final scene between him and Chloe was fittingly emotional given that this is 24 we are talking about.
5. Lost. A lot of people seem to be a little disappointed that this finale didn't wrap up more of the island mythology, but, personally, I like that it gave us enough hints to be able to puzzle out answers to most of the questions for ourselves and left the others open for plenty of debate and interpretation. How long before we have a Lost 101 class at some prestigious Ivy league school where the final grade includes an essay on what the smoke monster really is?
6. Rome. A series that was cancelled after two seasons by all accounts shouldn't have even had time to give itself a good, let alone great finale. But that's where you can tell good writers from bad ones. This finale really hit home just what fans were going to miss with the loss of this well-crafted, intriguing drama. I like this finale because it had a lot of smart, subtle nods to previous episodes, such as Pullo's realization about being a secret father and Cleopatra pulling the wool over Marc Antony's eyes.
7. Friends. A little forced with the whole Ross-Rachel will they/won't they drama finally getting resolved after, what, 10 long seasons. But the Chandler-Monica plot was top notch, and Joey and Phoebe were game for a few great last lines. Plus, it's nice to see an ending that leaves it's characters in a good, happy place.
8. Sex and the City. The season leading up to this finale was probably the weakest, but the resolution was sweet. All the characters were in a better place and seemed to have found what they were looking for over the course of the show. That is, until the movie came along and ruined everything!
9. Scrubs (the first time). Even though ABC decided to bring this comedy back after the fact as a kind of spin-off, the original finale was so darn good that no one bothered to tune in after that because it felt like it was all over. The finale was funny, moving and had JD coming to a few good realizations about his life based on another day at the hospital. In short, it was pretty much like any other episode of this witty little show.
10. ER. Bringing back all the original characters gave this finale closure by making the episode feel like it was coming full circle, but I like the way it really just played out like yet another day at the hospital, which, to the characters, it was. A lot of shows try to use this formula for their finales, but ER is one of the rare exceptions where it succeeds beautifully.
11. Alias. This show started to go down hill halfway through season three when they introduced Sydney's "long lost" sister. It was a desperate attempt to find some kind of replacement character to hang the show on should Jennifer Garner decide to walk away, which she, thankfully, didn't. Two and a half years later that sister was dead, leading up to the ultimate fate for her father and killer and series baddie Arvin Sloan. This finale had a few surprising deaths on the good guy side as well, but ended happily with out two favorite heroes, Sydney and Vaughan, reunited and essentially riding off into the sunset together.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)