Rant time: what happened to decorum?

Having heard and read good reviews about the film, "Prisoners", a night out at the movies was in order. Actually, the title of the film aptly describes the feeling of being seated in front of what can be best described as a couple of selfish numbskulls. Whatever happened to movie theatre decorum one wonders, anyway?

The film, which is too long in my view but that discussion is for another blog entry, is an intense cop drama that requires focus and concentration. Let me state for the record that I'm a big popcorn aficionado and a bag of the white stuff is a pre-requisite for an enjoyable night out at the movies. There are popcorn eaters and then there are popcorn eaters and it's truly amazing how the noisy eaters seem to gravitate to where we're seated.

No sooner did the film begin than a male, who shall be known as the 'Crinkle Bag Cracker', started what may be described as torturous routine consisting of inserting a hand (maybe two) into a paper receptacle, retrieving "a" i.e. one-at-a-time, kernel causing the bag to rustle/crinkle, in addition to what sounded like movements inside the bag, one surmises, distributing butter throughout. It was akin to a form of aural torture. Perhaps "popcorn torture" should be added to the lists of gleaning information for interrogation purposes.

"Who is your contact?" an interrogator would ask.

"I don't know what you're talking about," the person being interrogated would respond.

"We have our ways of making people talk! 'Bring out the terrible-bag-of pain!' an interrogator would command, after which a large bag filled with white kernels would be flashed in front of the prisoner. "These will be eaten one kernel at time over a 24 hour period."

"No-no! Not the terrible crinkly bag of popcorn! I'll talk! I'll talk"

But I digress. Getting back to the movie theatre issues...

After a while, instead of watching the film, I found myself wondering when the next popcorn kernel would be retrieved, resulting in the inevitable rattle that would follow. No amount of turning around and giving him 'the eye' had any impact on his behavior. It was interesting to note that there were other people seated around us that were eating popcorn but none produced the same level of noise as Mr. Crinkle Bag.

During the last half hour during the culmination of the story line and having finished the contents one presumes, Mr. Crinkle Bag decided for whatever reason - insanity springs to mind - to fold the empty bag over and over and over... It was more than our nerves could sustain compelling us to turn around and uttered loudly, "enough already!" which appeared to shock him into the realization that there were other people in the theatre.

As if this wasn't irritating enough and in spite of a notice on the screen to turn off  all cell phones before the movie started, the cell phone of his female accomplice sitting next to him rang. Rather than turn it off, she lifted it up to see the caller and allowed it to ring at least 3-4 times. Ignoring theatre patrons seated behind her who requested politely that she turn it off, she took her time texting a response, after which she finally turned it off. Not related but related, I've also attended funerals where cell phones were answered in addition to conversing with someone while the service was conducted.

As I asked: what happened to decorum?

I dunno. Read some articles in which producers et al complained that movie goers aren't going to theatres to watch movies as they once did. In my eyes - and ears - it's less stressful to watch movies on TV and settle for microwaved popcorn, and where answering a cell phone won't interfere with someone's night out at the movies. Not.

Shaken - not stirred - 50 years of 007

Just thinking how to go about celebrating this day. In case you weren't aware of it and count me in among those who aren't, October 5, 2012, will be Global James Bond Day. According to a promotional blurb, producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, who added their two-cents-worth, "We are absolutely thrilled to be celebrating James Bond's golden addniversary on film with this special day of events for Bond fans around the world." Especially since another new Bond film is about to be released.

The word, "golden" infers 50 years so one assumes it's a means in which to mark fifty years of Bond films. Personally and in my view, Sean Connery exemplified "the" James Bond. Among my favorite is "You Only Live Twice", where James must find and stop some baaaad dudes from a skyjacking in order to prevent a nuclear war. Also on high on my like list is "Dr. No" where James has to stop SPECTRE from stopping rocket launches. The worst Bond portrayer in my view, was George Lazenby, who merely went through the motions in the film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Just didn't have the necessary Bond qualities. You know - charm, finesse, hero qualities and cocktail mixing know-how. Sorry but Daniel Craig doesn't do it for me, either. Just doesn't have that Bond charm. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan did fit the bill but Sean still was the best.

The planned events to celebrate the golden anniversary includes a global online and live charity auction event organized by Christie's in London; a global survey in find out favorite Bond films, country-by-country; a Music of Bond Night in Los Angeles. Interesting to note that there are no special new martinis created in which to honor the man.

As Bond aficienodos know, 007 liked his martins, shaken - not stirred. However, recently and for whatever reason, Bond was made to gave up his martini in favor of imbibing in...well...beer. This was a very shocking move - at least for me. James Bond drinking a beer? What next? Maybe out of a bottle no less? Not that there's anything wrong with beer. Love a cold beer on a hot summer's day and enjoy it mixed with an un-cola but somehow and in my eyes, James Bond's personna does not go with beer.

SEDUCTIVE SPY
Make me a drink, James. You know - something cold that willcool down my hot mouth and slide down my throat

007
Got just the thing

SEDUCTIVE SPY
I heard that you're very adept in the liquid refreshment area, among other places

007
Watch me. First I take a bottle opener. Then I slip it under the bottle cap slowly, very slowly, pry the cap off until it gives in. Then I pour the contents into a large glass slowly and carefully and - voila!

SEDUCTIVE SPY
(putting on her clothes and heding for the door)
Sorry James but beer doesn't do it for me. Another time - another place... 'Boris - dahlink...'

But I digress.

Among the celebrations is an auction of Bond-related items to be auctioned off by Christie's on line until October 5 to benefit charities. Here is the coordinates for people who are interested in bidding on a momento: http://www.christies.com/sales/50-years-of-james-bond-september-2012/sale-info.aspx

Here is a clip from another of my favorites, "The Spy Who Loved Me" with Roger Moore as Bond. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgh-SAuT7hs

For those so inclined, here is the recipe for a James Bond Martini as per www.drinksmixer.com:

3 oz. gin
1 oz. vodka
1/2 oz. white wine

Pour gin, vodka and wine into a cocktail shaker half-filled with crracked ice. Shake well (not stirred obviously to get the real Bond feel.) and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a twist of lemon and serve.

How do you plan to celebrate?

 

  

Adjustments needed for "The Adjustment Bureau"

Let me first admit that I'm in no way a film critique but I am a paying movie goer. This being written, caught the new Matt Damon offering, "The Adjustment Bureau" based on trailers of the film. In retrospect, sometimes it's better to remember the movie previews and skip seeing the film itself, at least until it comes out on DVD. This is one of those situations. It's not that I don't care for Matt as an actor because he's always done justice to other roles in which he acted.

The premise of the film is that our lives are pre-ordained and we can't or shouldn't change them but sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, and if and when we do try, there is a price to be paid. Got that?

As an up and coming young politician, the film opens with David Norris (Damon) seeking a congressional seat but on election night, a report surfaces concerning a brawl he has at a college reunion causing his rating to fall among his constituents. While practicing his concession speech, he encounters Elise, played by Emily Blunt, a ballerina hiding from security having crashed a wedding.

Security? For crashing a wedding? Say what? Why they chose Blunt for the role is a mystery from my perspective. She was...there. Period.

They meet and sense something familiar. After a much too long discussion about where and why they know each other that seemed to go nowhere, he suddenly feels inspired to change his concession speech into a confession in front of his supporters, which in turn things around positively and he prepares for another try. He meets her again while travelling on a bus to his new job at a venture capital firm, she gives him her phone number and he promoses to call. This whole scene seemed agonizingly long as did a large portion of the movie.

Blah...blah...blah...

Arriving at his place of work, he catches sight of strange-looking men in suits wearing hats. The suits looked normal to me but the hats - that's something else. What the symbolism behind wearing hats is a mystery. Perhaps there were film investors who were hat company owners or maybe I missed the explanation. Have to admit that I dozed off for a few minutes. In any case, the good/bad-ish-at-times guys kidnap Damon. He is informed by the head-hat-person, Mr. Richardson, that they are "Adjusters" and that he wasn't supposed to have met Elise the second time on the bus. Where these adjusters come from - we presume heaven or some ethereal place but it's not clear - walk the earth among humans to ensure things go according to "The Plan." This 'plan', laid out by their Chairman, is kept in a notebook and it's their responsibility to keep balance in the world. A close-up of The Plan shows lots of lines and squiggles and directional arrows on maps.

It's a very convoluted film with warnings by the hat people about dire consequences if David contacts Elise again since it will ruin her chances into devleloping into a world-famous ballerina and his political career will be over. He is given the choice and to drag out the film even more, he walks away from Elise who eventually ends up engaged to someone else, but after seeing headlines of her impending nuptials in a newspaper, Norris goes after her. And so on, and so on...
Let me state for the record that I really enjoy these type of films, which present people with moral choices that could affect the future. This film, however, didn't do it for me. Somehow the hat-people seemed almost comical, which definitely was not intentional in spite of their austere demeanor. It also didn't help that the chase scenes featured the couple on the run entering doors that lead to different geographical locations to flee their pursuers. At one point and upon entering a door, the couple found themselves in the middle of an empty stadium. What was the symbolism? Empty stadium equals empty lives, equals no hotdogs or peanuts?

BTW - the couple are informed at the end of the movie that the people-who-wear-hats look like all of us only wearing hats are among us. This includes cops, construction workers...you get the picture. Now we know why the world is the way it is.

As I mentioned at the beginning - wait for the DVD.

Rating: 2 hats out of 5

The Academy Awards, same-old, same-old with new hosts

I saw, I yawned and then I gave up. That about sums up the experience last night. For the record, I'm all in favor of changing hosts but not for the sake of changing hosts. They have to have some talent at hosting and propelling a show along. Unfortunately, Anne Hathaway and James Franco, IMHO, did not do it, at least for me. Actually, Hathaway did a decent job and put in a valiant effort but unfortunately was held back by a very stiff and bored-looking, Franco, who seemed as if he wanted to be anywhere but at the Oscars. However, maybe that's his personna. I dunno but he's good on General Hospital, where he makes guest appearances from time-to-time. Then again, on a soap opera they can do re-takes until an actor gets it right. Too bad they couldn't do the same for him hosting the award show. Even when he came out dressed in drag and instead of using the opportunity to ham it up, he was merely...James Franco along with a painful expression on his face that said: "okay - I did what they wanted. Now can I leave?" Perhaps somebody should have granted his request. I read that they wanted young co-hosts that could attract a new and young audience, which is all well and good and understandable. Seems that Franco fit the bill in one way at least, providing tweet updates and photos as the show dragged - and that it did - via Twitter. However, one - me - must ask if that's enough to carry an awards show. Not IMHO. The powers-that-be obviously believe that, though.

In any case the best part at least for me, is the pre-show or red carpet, when the actors are interviewed. Love the fashion parade which has turned into an opportunity for designers to display their work, which in turn is worth big $$$$. Strapless is still the way to go this year. This year on the whole, the fashions were stunning. Can't really pick one designer above all the rest but I do love Valentino and his vintage dress worn by Hathaway. Mind you, Hally Berry in Marchesa was breath taking as was Gwynth Paltrow dressed by Calvin Klein, Mila Kunis in Elie Saab, Celine Dion looking trim-and-slim in a Giorgio Armana frock. One of my favorites was Mandy Moore in Monique Lhuiller - wow!

Once the show began, it was a steady downhill slip until Billy Crystal showed up, greeted with a standing ovation no less, displaying the showmanship and finesse from honing his craft over the years and what an Oscar host is supposed to be like. Bring back Billy! Or if he doesn't want to do it, Ricky Gervais. Actually found the entire show borrrrrrring - and quit half-way through. What happened to musical numbers that included dancing and singing back in the days of yore? While we're on the subject of music, I never heard of any of the nominated songs from the films. Did you?

Why-oh-why do the winners have to go on-and-on-and on...thanking everybody that they ever met during their entire life time? We viewers really don't care! Thank a few key people and then good-bye. It will cut the actual time the show finishes by half.

All that being written, will I watch it next year? You bet. What and miss the opportunity to critique the fashion statements and the endless speeches?

Turn off your cell phones, people!

Short rant today about people and where and when they use their cell phones.

Went to see "The King's Speech" this weekend and it was a great film but that's not the issue here. As anyone who has seen the film will attest, it's an intense story line requiring attention.

It's always amazing, to me at least, how people are attached to their cell phones. I'm surprised that users haven't been afflicted by some type of physical condition as a result of walking with their head down glued to the phone screen. For me, the "icing on the cake" was when using a public washroom, the person in the cubicle next to mine was carrying on a conversation, making plans for the evening. I mean - for heaven's sake - what happened to peeing in private! But I digress.

At the half-way point in the movie, the sound of a ringing phone suddenly reverberated throughout the theatre. Since it was an electronic ring and definitely not in the context of the time period being the 1930's, a bright electronic light emitted from one of the seats drew attention to a cell phone user. The ringing went on for at least 15-20 seconds followed by loud boos and yells to "turn it off!" - and the theatre turned dark. Not five minutes later, the ring of the cell phone was heard again followed by even louder yells from movie watchers, but this time the cell phone user actually had a conversation with...whoever.

Manners people - manners - and common courtesy! You're in a movie theatre and not at Starbucks!

Surely, there has to be some type of cell phone etiquette or rules by movie-plexes and/or repercussions for people who can't live without their cell phones for a mere two hours. Perhaps movie theatres and/or chains should actually fine the offenders to discourage this type of behavior. To their credit most theatres flash a message on the screen prior to the film asking people to turn them off and for the most part, people do obey. Turn off your cell phone, people and guess what! Perhaps you will even enjoy the movie!

Golden Globes - Hollywood puts on its best smile

Did you watch the Golden Globe Awards last night? What did you think of Ricky Gervais's acidic/acerbic observations of various Hollywood celebs? Actually, I found him very entertaining although it was visually obvious during camera pans that not everyone agreed.

Watched it for the first hour while waiting for the next installment of Masterpiece Theatre's, "Downton Abbey" (love this series!) and returned for the last half-hour. Seems I didn't miss that much since Ricky's presence was limited in the second half of the show. Hmmmm...wonder why... As usual, the 'thank-you's' by the winners went on and on to the point where you (me) want to scream, "shut-up, already!" Really, your average person really doesn't know or care who was responsible for elevating the star to the winner's circle or the people involved in making the film/TV series.

One of the more interesting - at least for me - aspects of watching any award show is the reaction of those nominated who didn't win. There is the fixed smile and the applause but one has to admire their brave personna. Inside they could be thinking: "that stupid blah-blah - she/he didn't deserve the award. I should'a won! Wait 'til I speak to my agent!" Just speculating.

Another favorite part of all award shows is the fashions and general "look." Local plastic surgeons must be working day and night before all award shows judging by the lack of aging on the s*t*a*r*s. Not a frown line, skin creases or bags under the eyes could be seen, anywhere. Mind you, at least big lips were in short supply, thank goodness. Personally, I love the dresses and am aghast at how anyone can walk in those beautiful-looking but most likely painful to wear, shoes. All part of the "the look" one assumes so that we viewers will sigh and wish that we were among the glitterai.

The Golden Globes is the kick-off for the plethora of award shows that will follow. Somehow, they don't seem as relevant as they once did. Still, they're the only means in which to get a glimpse of our favorite celebs playing the role of celebs. And it's about the fashions...

Britain has its own Roswell? Did they or didn't they?

By now everyone - at least those who are into UFO sightings - are aware of Roswell and the controversy it has created over the years. Was it real...weather balloons...piece of alien spacecraft. Anywaaaaay...

It appears that staid Britain could have had its own UFO occurrence known locally as the "Rendlesham Incident" that happened in 1980 when U.S. air force pilots saw strange lights in Suffolk, England.

The one-time head of the armed forces told the defence secretary a UFO claim known as Britain's Roswell could be a "banana skin", newly released files show.

Banana skin? As in peel from the fruit? Perhaps UFO'logists have been looking in the wrong place but I digress. (Note: the term "banana skin" is British slang for potential political embarrassment).

The "Rendlesham incident" involved American flyers from RAF Woodbridge who reported seeing mysterious lights. Witnesses reported seeing the UFO transmit blue pulsating lights that sent local farm animals to go wacko. In the way of an explanation that did not include a weather balloon this time, an ex-US security policeman Kevin Conde admitted that he and another airman had shone patrol car lights through the trees and made noises on the loudspeaker as a prank. There is no truth to the rumor, either, than Mariah Carey's crew was testing their equipment at the time or that KISS was preparing for another world tour.

Other more recent incidents in the latest batch of documents, which cover the years 1981 to 1996, include:

• Two men from Staffordshire who told police that, as they returned home from an evening out in 1995, an alien appeared under a hovering UFO hoping to take them away (this begs the question as to why they didn't)
• More than 30 sightings of bright lights over central England during a six-hour period in 1993, which led to the assistant chief of defence staff being briefed - and turned out to be caused by a Russian rocket re-entering the atmosphere
• Several sightings in Bonnybridge, central Scotland, which became the UK's UFO hotspot during the 1990s
• A UFO which was seen over the jazz stage at the Glastonbury Festival in June 1994. The two female witnesses reported that they turned to the people next to them to verify what they had seen but "they didn't look hard enough or take it seriously"

So what does this all mean in the scheme of things?

- UFO sightings leapt from 117 in 1995 to 609 in 1996 - the year that Will Smith's alien invader blockbuster Independence Day was released and alien conspiracy series The X Files was at the height of its popularity with UK audiences

- Dr David Clarke, a UFO expert and journalism lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, said it was significant that one of the biggest years for reports previously had been 1978, which saw 750 - at the same time that Steven Spielberg's blockbuster Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released.

So now it's not a weather balloon but mass hysteria as a result of the release of alien-related films. At least it's original and a good explanation as any. The controversy will continue until actual, real aliens make a landing and are interviewed on CNN by Anderson Cooper.

Meanwhile, watch the short video with some videos purportedly capturing UFO'S, a discussion whether or not UFO's are real plus some possible explanations here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8202157.stm

Some writers make BIG, big money - ask JK Rowling

As writers many of us dream about success and the subsequent riches that we hope - mainly dream - it will bring us. For most of us... Okay. A large portion of us, it remains in the dream stage. Then there's JK Rowling.

You know...she of Harry Potter fame? Would you believe that she makes £5 every second. Think of what this means! Every second the talented writer makes money even if she doesn't make or write one word! As a freelance writer it sometimes takes days to produce one decent piece of writing, not to mention having to shop it around in the hope of receiving compensation. She can, you know... if the mood hits her, write the letter "A" and the pounds roll in.

"What time is it?" she could ask somebody, during a casual conversation or sharing recipes. "Oh my - I just made five pounds... No - make that ten pounds. No - make that fifteen pounds..." You get the idea.

Impressive writer is an under-statement. Collectively, she has sold more than 400 million copies of her books world-wide making her the world's highest-earning author according to Forbes magazine. She made a total of $300 million last year alone.


Here's a list of the Top 10 Best-Paid Authors:

1. JK Rowling - $300m
2. James Patterson - $50m
3. Stephen King - $45m)
4. Tom Clancy - $35m
5. Danielle Steel - $30m
6. John Grisham - $25m
6. Dean Koontz - $25m
8. Ken Follett - $20m
9. Janet Evanovich - $17m
10. Nicholas Sparks - $16m

Source: Forbes magazine

By the way my name is NOT among them. Obviously it's an error (wink-wink).

Read an article on how Rowlings got where she is today here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7626896.stm