Old chum

In looking at Natasha Richardson's work, I realized that I really only knew her from the remake of The Parent Trap and the Cabaret soundtrack, but those were enough to make me pretty upset when I heard about her death. I definitely recommend checking out this post, which not only goes into detail about why her performance of Sally Bowles was so awesome, but also includes clips of her doing "Maybe This Time" and "Cabaret."

So THAT'S what Alan Thicke has been up to

If you're not watching How I Met Your Mother, you're missing out. It's completely hilarious and more realistic than most shows about people my age. Plus, you're missing out on the awesome tie-ins. If they mention a website on the show, you can be pretty sure that they've actually made the website. And CanadianSexActs.org, featured last night, is no exception. I highly recommend checking out all of the descriptions. I particularly recommend Two Girls, One Stanley Cup and Sloppy Dog Sled. You'll have that site bookmarked in no time, just like Barney!

(Also, the Manitoba Mail Bag.)

Hidden potential of not-so-great chick lit

I like the chick lit. I admit it. And I'm not necessarily picky about it. So when I was meandering around the library the other day and saw a book called Remind Me Again Why I Need a Man, I picked it up. Set in Ireland. A woman goes through her ex-boyfriends to figure out what she's doing wrong. Sounds promising. Like a lot of others, the writing and story were entertaining enough to propel me quickly through the book. And, like a lot of others, after I finish it, I find myself thinking "Meh."

For one thing, the story is just insanely over-the-top. The main character, Amelia, is taking a class because she wants to get married, and each week she's supposed to contact a former boyfriend and find out why he thinks they broke up--get his perspective. Logical. However, two problems. One, there were a lot of flashbacks. A bunch of these flashed back to the 80s. And the author couldn't help but throw in things like people commenting about how perfect Charles and Diana are for each other, or how Elton John couldn't be gay--he's married! Oh, ha ha! It's funny because it's not true! *bangs head on desk*

The other main problem is the craziness of the ex-boyfriends. (SPOILERS AHEAD!) We meet 10 of them, and the most normal of them is the latest ex. He told her he couldn't commit, then turned up engaged to a woman 15 years younger to them, and the two of them moved in across the street. The others? Gay, insane asylum, monk, etc. I know, it's a delicate balance. They couldn't all be normal, because then the book would be boring. Or, you know, the author would have to work harder to make the book entertaining. So it's just the litany of crazy mishaps and crazy boyfriends.

Which, again, is pretty entertaining. The issue is that, as the teacher of the class points out, this only says that Amelia needs to pick less crazy men. She doesn't need to change. There were a couple points when I thought she would realize that maybe part of her problem was that she was career-oriented. This could lead to her being all, "Hey, I'm cool with that--I have an awesome career!" or maybe trying to figure out a better balance or realizing that she buried herself in her career so she wouldn't have to deal with her life. No. At other times, I thought it would be that she'd realize her group of friends was too insular; she has three friends (whom she calls "girlies," which just drove me up a wall) whom she's known she was a child and with whom she's insanely tight. And again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it would be nice if maybe she thought that the tightness of her group might be intimidating to men. This is pointed out by her teacher. I'm not saying that she has to change...it would just be nice if Amelia were the least bit introspective about any of this.

But no. In the end, she chooses herself. Which isn't bad. It just seemed incredibly abrupt, and reinforced that her career and friends were more important than a man. And I don't disagree--I don't mean to say that at all. It was just all very odd.

It reminds me a bit of Something Blue. Now, Emily Giffin is a better writer; her characters have depth and are incredibly relatable. Except for in Something Blue, in which the main character, who's been pretty unlikable for the past book and a quarter (the book is a sequel to Something Borrowed), basically says, "Hey, I should become a Good Person," then acts like one. And ta-da! Transformation! Incredibly superficial one, in my opinion. I guess I just need a bit more of the inner workings of the characters.

Maybe I'm just ticked off at the lost potential. I see a better story there, just wanting to get out. But it doesn't.

OK, so he's kind of a Baldwin

Admittedly, it really only takes "Paul Rudd's in it" to get me to see a movie. I love him. I have, since Clueless. Every time he goes on The Daily Show, I only love him more (go here and search for him). And in Knocked Up, he wore Orioles gear. Awesome! (And seriously, Role Models was underrated. You should totally rent it.)

So, combine him with Jason Segal, whom I love from Freaks & Geeks and How I Met Your Mother, in I Love You, Man, and yeah, I'm thinking I'm there. Plus, I love the one trailer where Paul is trying to figure out how to meet guys to be friends with. It's so true; how do you make friends? And I can relate to those "needs to loosen up" characters.

Also, Paul Rudd has the best eyes. Dreamy.

Celebrities and those crazy Internet people

When I got to the Y today, my iPod decided to break and the elliptical I was on didn't have a tv, so I found myself reading a copy of Marie Claire that had been left in the machine's cupholder. There was an article that interviewed Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Aniston, and Ginnifer Goodwin, who were promoting He's Just Not That Into You. The section that really grabbed my attention was their discussion of online dating:

MC [Marie Claire]: You all have, um, colorful dating pasts. If you weren't celebrities, how would you choose to meet men?
DB: Drunk in a bar. No, wait — kidding!
JA: I'd have to be dragged out to places. Well, like I am now.
MC: No Match.com? No Facebook?
JA: No, no, no. The Internet freaks me out.
GG: I think it's the devil. We're pack animals! We're supposed to be connecting face-to-face.
JA: The Internet warps reality. If you're an Internet person, real life will fall short of what you have been privy to online — sexually, emotionally. It's so unreal and gives you this sense of order where there isn't any. You can't drag and paste life!
MC: You don't feel you can get to know someone online?
DB: You think people tell the truth about themselves? Every guy is 6'4" with a huge schlong. That's why people love it so much. Internet does not equal sodium pentothal. [Holds up an old Polaroid camera that she carries with her everywhere] This is not for the person who surfs the Web. I love this thing. I want to meet someone who's into all the old-school stuff. I remember when I first started dating, the big thing was RadioShack answering machines. It was such a huge deal to run home and check your messages. And when you could actually check from another phone? That was, like, the craziest thing ever!

And it goes on from there. I mean, obviously Jennifer Aniston checking out Match or eHarmony for a date. It is interesting, though, how their celebrity colors their view of the entire Internet. It's a shame, really, though it's an understandable one. Goodwin admits that she has googled herself and that it led to tears. Which is kind of weird; I don't think I've ever read anything negative about her...but then, I've also never done a search for her. And it must be weird to be a celebrity and to see all this discussion of your life out there.

But at the same time, it's sad that they don't realize that people on the Internet aren't inherently bizarre freaks. It's annoying, too, but mostly I think it's sad. Again, I understand why they think so; both Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Aniston got really popular before the Internet became used in such a widespread way. I would hope that, like, Miley Cyrus or the Jonas Brothers don't have a similar attitude.

Though it does make me wonder what these people do with their time. If they find the Internet so scary...what do they do with their time? Work out, I guess. Watch tv? Obviously they can't watch certain channels. Read, maybe? Play video games? I have no idea.

BOBSLED!

I've enjoyed The Amazing Race since its early season. I even went to a few TARCons in New York (I want to say for Seasons 3 and 4, maybe). It's such a great show; you get to see fabulous places, and the placement of the teams is largely in their own hands.

Tonight's leg was one of my favorites ever, based entirely on where they went and what they did. They went to Siberia. How awesome is that? I want to go to Russia and think it would be so cool to get to Siberia; or, at least, get as far east as where the Romanovs were killed. (Because yes, I find that intriguing.) You know what would rock? Going on the Trans-Siberian Railway. Um. Anyway. Cool!

And then, as if going to Sibera wasn't enough, they had BOBSLED! It was very similar to the bobsled I did in Jamaica last December, and seriously, every time they showed it, I got all happy. And then annoyed that most of the teams hadn't heard of Chekhov. It's not like he isn't famous, people. I shudder to think of what the Russian judge there thought of us. I'm sure she's heard of Mark Twain, you know?

So thanks, Amazing Race. You totally made my night.

Oh what a beautiful evening

So of course I watched the Oscars. How could I not? Even if didn't watch every year, they had Hugh Jackman host. I love him. He was awesome hosting the Tonys, he's dreamy, he can sing and dance. The Oscars didn't really need to try to get me to watch, but man. Hugh Jackman.

And he didn't disappoint. I liked the show, overall. Liked the opening number, particularly the admission of not seeing The Reader. Now, you'd think that I'd like the salute to movie musicals. I love musicals. I love production numbers. I love montages. I love Hugh Jackman. There's nothing bad here, right? Yet, as I watched, I was trying to figure out why it left me cold. It got to "You Can't Stop the Beat" from Hairspray, which I adore, and I was like, "This should be awesome. What's wrong?" I got annoyed at that point because the tempo of the song was much slower than it should've been. I just feel like it wasn't put together as well as it could've been. And then Hugh said that it was done by Baz Luhrmann. And there was my answer. His stuff just leaves me cold. I almost walked out in the middle of Romeo + Juliet and was meh on Moulin Rouge, for all that it had an adorable Ewan McGregor singing. Someone make him step away from songs I like, OK?

One thing I'm not sure about is having the past winners present the nominations. There were times when it really worked (Shirley MacLaine/Anne Hathaway), but a lot of the time, I was kind of like, "Blah blah blah." And it did prevent us from getting clips of the nominated performances. But, man, I wouldn't take that moment away from Anne Hathaway and the others for whom it was clearly very meaningful. So I don't know. Maybe make it shorter. However, I'd like to point out that since we didn't get clips from the movie, this didn't extend the show, like some people claim.

The other thing I don't know about is adding the clips from previous Oscar winners to the Best Picture clips. Again, I get why they did it. It just didn't always work. I'd put that in the "Interesting Experiment, But Let's Scrap It For Next Year" pile.

In all, though, I quite enjoyed it. Because, really, anything that involves Hugh Jackman singing can't be bad.

Plus, I've totally seen a bunch of members of the royal family!

Now that I have a bit of spare time, I'm finally tackling the backlog on my DVR. Which means that I just got around to watching Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work. (It aired originally in November. My DVR backlog is nothing to my Netflix queue--290 and counting!) It reminded me, not surprisingly, of Windsor Castle: A Royal Year, which premiered not long before Monarchy started filming. One thing I realized was that I could never be a royal, because I am far too lazy. These folks are crazy busy. I imagine it's part of a PR campaign for the monarchy...though, have these aired in Britain, too? Because otherwise, there's no point, other than to satiate Americans' curiousity about the monarchy. In one part of Monarchy, it addresses the anti-monarchy sentiment, and one guy talks about how Americans like the queen, but (paraphrasing) when he asks whether we'd want to take her back with us, we're all, "No! But we like her. It's so quaint!" and Britain isn't "quaint," it's a powerful nation and even spending 60 pence a person per year on the monarchy is too much.

OK, I cop to traveling around England and thinking that towns are cute. (Because they are!) But I don't really think that the monarchy is "quaint." The negative reaction of Americans toward bringing home a queen quite possibly has something to do with our country's history and less about being "quaint." And some of the money being spent on the monarchy is going to be spent even if there is no royalty--there will still be state dinners and stuff that need to be paid for. Plus, there is something to be said for having separate heads of state and heads of government.

What I found particularly interesting was how people reacted to meeting the Queen. A typical interaction would have the Queen ask a few question and the person answer. Afterward, they would invariably say that she seemed incredibly interested. There was even a point where she had dinner, and the chef was all, "She loved it! Enjoyed every bite!" There seems to be quite a bit of projection going on, but at the same time, this is a woman who clearly is very good at her job. It's impressive.

And yes, clearly, I'm pro-monarchy. This is possibly my Anglophilia rearing its head. But still. The entire family came across as very likable, and I can't help but wish good things for them.

No, seriously. Just don't buy it.

I saw Confessions of a Shopaholic today and quite enjoyed it--more than I thought I would. I've read all of the books and though this was quite different, it was still good. A bit more slap-sticky, but good. I'm a bit disappointed that they moved it from London to New York, particularly since I can't quite tell why. Does Yves St. Laurent not have stores in London? I find that hard to believe. Plus, Hugh Dancy is British. Isla Fisher isn't American. Why the change? I can understand why they made some of the changes they did (including making Luke Becky's boss--I don't like the change, it's a bit icky--but I get why they did it), but I hate when movie versions of books make random changes like that. Maybe New York is cheaper to film in? Anyway. Isla Fisher was really appealing, as was Hugh Dancy, and even the three random middle-aged guys who were there seemed to enjoy it. So I recommend it. The books can be frustrating at times, but I like Sophie Kinsella's books, so if not these books, pick up one of her other books. The nice thing about the movie is that there's less time to be frustrated by Becky's actions ("Stop buying things!").

I'm not going to get into my thoughts on the book itself

I had heard about the cute trailer for He's Just Not That Into You, and I finally got around to watching it tonight. (You can view it here, by clicking on "Click here for the Top 10 Chick Flick Cliches not found in the movie".) It was, I admit, pretty darn cute, though I do already have very fond feelings for Bradley Cooper, leftover from Alias and I Want to Marry Ryan Banks. I have mixed feelings about Justin Long; I liked him on Ed, but dislike the Mac commercials (though that hasn't made me dislike John Hodgman; of course, I like Hodgman much more than Long in those commercials). I have no opinion of Kevin Connolly. But anyway.

So I was watching the trailer and enjoying it, but then I started wondering about the audience. Ostensibly it's for guys who are reluctant to see chick flick with their girlfriends/dates. The trailer consists of the three guys acting out chick flick cliches, which means that in a few of the clips, they're each other's love interest--there aren't any girls in the trailer. So I was trying to figure out how the target audience for this would react. At first I figured that they would laugh; you know, "Heh, those guys are acting gay!" But then I wondered whether this audience would be uncomfortable with it--like the guys who hate when a movie that's included scenes of full-frontal nudity of women also has a brief shot of a guy's naked butt. I honestly don't know.