Curtains!

MK and I made curtains for the new townhouse. Thank goodness for MK, without whom this project would not have been possible (or nearly so successful). They turned out exactly as I had imagined! I love the sheer fabric - with a slightly puckered texture - and the way it looks in the space (the rabbit likes it too). The fabric was v. slippery to work with when sewing, so I consider it quite a feat that I didn't butcher the final product. It was extremely helpful for me to have a second pair of hands. MK made the curtain on the right and I made the curtain on the left (with some help). We don't have curtains in any of the other rooms, so another sewing project is around the bend.

The Great Pie Crust Success of 2009

Amy and I successfully made the foolproof pie crust for Shabbat dinner. The pie itself (a combination of tart cherries, raspberries, blueberries, and strawberries) was a little tart! However, the pie crust was flaky and delicious.

I have borrowed The Pie and Pastry Bible from my boss, MK and now have an arsenal full of pie recipes which I am excited to make. Now that I have successfully made one pie crust, I feel drunk with success - like I could make any of the pies in the book. That may or may not be true, but you are sure to see the results of those labors in the future!

Inglorious Bastards/Basterds

In light of the soon-to-be-released Quentin Tarantino movie, Inglorious Basterds, the husband got the 1978 movie on which Tarantino based his remake. All of 99 minutes long, it still took us two separate days to watch it. My overwhelming sentiment is that I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would remake this movie. If I had to create a tagline for the 1978 version, I guess I'd say "Imagine The Great Escape, but with a cast of characters that you really care little about and a 'love story' that is too contrived to even be enjoyable. The special effects are neither good enough to be impressive nor bad enough to be laughable."

That being said, based on the trailer, Mr. Tarantino took significant liberties in adapting this film. I don't think the remake will bear that much resemblance to the original. I don't necessarily mean that as a compliment. The original was awful, disjointed, and incoherent. The remake looks down-right unwatchable. As a tagline "You've never seen war until you've seen it through the eyes of Tarantino" is not going to convince me to see this movie. I thoroughly appreciate Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. The latter ranks among my favorite movies of all time. However, I am almost entirely convinced that I appreciate those movies in spite of, not because of Tarantino.

Tarantino still owes me for the 4 hours of my life that I wasted watching Kill Bill Vol 1. and 2 (don't ask me why I saw the second one, I can't give you a satisfying answer). I'm not going to waste any more time watching Inglorious Basterds. Not after I already lost 100 precious minutes watching the original.

He's Chevy Chase, and I'm glad I'm not

Caddyshack was on TV today and as I am sick, I decided I would watch it. I have never seen Caddyshack and assumed I was missing out, based on all the pop culture surrounding it. After watching it, I've decided I wasn't missing anything after all.

While watching it, I realized that I couldn't think of a single Chevy Chase movie that I had ever seen. I went to IMDB.com to confirm this. Apparently, the only other movie I have ever seen with Chevy Chase was Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird (seriously). However, I learned something even more interesting from IMDB.com: Chevy Chase has made some dumb career moves! Among them:

1. He left SNL after just one year
2. He turned down the role of Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters
3. He turned down the role of Buzz Lightyear
4. He turned down the male lead in American Beauty, for which Kevin Spacey won an Oscar
5. He joked about Cary Grant being gay, for which Grant sued him

whoa! how did this guy get such an ego all things considered?

Up (and down)

I would have written about the movie Up earlier, but it's taken me a couple of weeks to be able to think, talk, write about it at length without bursting in to tears (only a slight exaggeration). RE: my post about EW's Summer Movie Preview, I previously would have followed Pixar wherever they might lead me. I have agreed with the premise of each and every movie they've released: toys should be well-loved and never discarded; monster's should incorporate; robots and their pet cockroaches need love too. I cried during Toy Story 2, Jay cried during Meet the Robinsons, I cried again during Wall-e. It was a "good cry" and did not detract from our love of these movies. I own them all and have watched them multiple times. They are among my favorite of the Pixar films.

Then there was Up. I went to see Up with my husband and two of our guy friends. All three men bawled their way through most of the movie. I, myself, got so tired of crying that I just took off my 3-D glasses and sighed my way through the rest of the movie. If my belief system didn't prevent me from leaving a movie theatre half-way through a movie, I would have left. SPOILER ALERT. In the first 10 minutes of the movie, Carl (voiced by the wonderful Ed Asner) befriends a quirky young girl when they are both small children, shares with her the same childhood hero, grows up, marries her, finds out that they can't have children of their own, and then she dies from cancer. ARE YOU KIDDING ME, PIXAR???? Why beat me over the head with how much they loved each other and what a wonderful couple they were just to kill her off 7 minutes into the movie??? And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Their childhood hero, Charles Muntz turns out to be a mass-murdering psychopath. Russell, a young boy scout who inadvertently joins Carl on his trip to South America, has an indominable spirit --- did I mention that his father is a dead-beat and Charles Muntz tries to kill Russell multiple times in multiple ways?? Oh, and the happy ending? A photo montage of all the adorable things that Carl and Russell do together once they return from South America. Too little, too late.

As for the message of life after death, all the advetures that a widower can have once his wife is dead, I'll take "fish are friends, not food" over this crap any day. This premise was far worse than let's have a bunch of rats cooking in a French kitchen.

In the future, Pixar, I'll be more extensively reading the reviews before blindly assuming that this movie will be another home run.

All that being said, this is the sweetest movie screening story that I have ever heard. It confirms that Pixar is still my ideal employer.

Sunshine Cleaning

Anyone who knows me know that my respect and admiration for Amy Adams runs deep. So it is perhaps unsurprising that I adored Sunshine Cleaning. However, before you assume that I'm just a fan girl with no critical eye, let's examine the criticism leveled against this film.

A.O. Scott (who, for once, I totally disagree with) writes, "I’m thinking of a movie. Wait, don’t tell me, it’s on the tip of my tongue. It takes place in Albuquerque. There’s a beat-up old van, a lot of family dysfunction, a cute kid, a get-rich-quick scheme that doesn’t quite work out as planned. Alan Arkin is the grandpa. The title? Something about 'Sunshine.' No, not that one. 'Little Miss Sunshine' came out in 2006. Why on earth would I be reviewing it now? I’m wondering that myself. A better title for the movie I am supposed to review — for the record, it’s 'Sunshine Cleaning,' directed by Christine Jeffs from a script by Megan Holley — would be 'Sundance Recycling,' since the picture is less a free-standing independent film than a scrap-metal robot built after a shopping spree at the Park City Indie Parts and Salvage Warehouse."

First, there are many movies out there that recycle BAD scripts and BAD actors and yet continue to draw large audiences and fans. I'm thinking specifically of movies made by the Wayans Brothers or Aaron Seltzer (Scary Movie 1 through 3289673, Date Movie, Epic Movie, Dance Movie, etc, etc...). I would much rather we recycle Sunshine than crap.

Second, nothing about Sunshine Cleaning was forced or manipulated. There is a joy in the way the girls manage to stand up for themselves while learning to trust others. Case in point, two main characters (whose names I will not disclose to avoid writing "SPOILER ALERT") aren't romantically linked at the end of the movie. I was pleasantly surprised with how simply and naturally the story unfolded. Sunshine Cleaning lacks a lot of the intentional quirkiness of Little Miss Sunshine in favor of the mundane. The van in Sunshine Cleaning doesn't break down or cause any hilarious antics, it's just a run-down crappy van that Rose is forced to drive for her business. But the van does play an important role in the Lorkowski's life nonetheless, as cars are want to do.

Finally, a shout out to the Kimball Theatre for bringing Sunshine Cleaning to Williamsburg. I thought I would have to wait until it's DVD release. So glad that I didn't have to.

Angels & Demons

For all of those DaVinci Code haters out there, let me offer a brief disclaimer: when it comes to The DaVinci Code, my personal opinion is that the book was just okay and the movie was not. Dan Brown writes good Scooby Doo-esque art mystery novels - a race across Paris! a race across Rome! What is there not to love about that? Unfortunately, he sprinkles in a bit of his pseudo-religious, pseudo-academic, fiction meets fact craziness. The DaVinci Code film adaptation reminds me of the 4th Indiana Jones movie - both made me think, "who thought that plot sounded sane?" Audrey Tatou as the last descendant of Christ? Really? The saving grace of the movie is that they were allowed to film in the Louvre. That's pretty cool! However, Jumper got permission to film at the Coliseum and that didn't stop the movie from being total crap. I fear that The DaVinci Code likewise wasted what was a golden opportunity. And finally, what was going on with Tom Hanks' hair?!? Who thought that was a good look?

In Angels and Demons, Hanks' Robert Langdon gets a hair cut. Director Ron Howard also cuts out the fat from Dan Brown's novel. The novel of Angels and Demons is roughly 400 pages: 300 pages of Robert Langdon's cheesy genius as he searches for the four altars across (a cross) Rome. The last 100 pages, however, taking a running leap off the deep end of the pool. In the case of Angels and Demons, Ron Howard adapted the novel to film in almost the opposite style as his adaptation of The DaVinci Code. In The DaVinci Code, Ron Howard cut a lot of the cheesy art drama in favor of ramping up the religiosity. In Angels and Demons, he scaled back the craziness of the last 100 pages and the character of the Carmelengo had fewer layers to explore (who knew that was a good thing!). Ron Howard, I thank you. As a result of those decisions, Angels and Demons was fun! It's not going to shake anyone's faith in science or G-d and it clearly wasn't meant to. The pacing was solid and the characters were compelling. And, thanks in no small part to that hair cut, the character of Robert Langdon was truly a-dork-able.

A.O. Scott (who, let's face it, I almost always agree with) summed it up best when he said, "The utter silliness of 'Angels & Demons' is either its fatal flaw or its saving grace, and in the spirit of compassion I suppose I’d be inclined to go with the second option. The movie all but begs for such treatment. 'When you write about us,' an erstwhile nemesis says to Langdon near the end, 'and you will write about us, do so gently.' It was as if he were looking right into my soul. And how could I refuse such a humble, earnest petition? Go in peace."

Yes, indeed.