July 31, 2009

Sit on a bear

My baby brother is leaving for his mission in a little more than a month. Like all my other siblings, he inherited a silly sense of humor from our mom. When we're all together and in a certain mood (usually that mood is "bored"), our combined silliness erupts as volcano of nonsensical giggling and inside jokes. It drives my dad nuts. And probably everyone else in hearing distance.

I remember this one time we were all in the van outside my dad's work. He had to pick something up, and my mom went into the office with him, leaving all five of us kids in the car. As usual, we were playing a silly made-up game. We'd make a random statement, but switch around a couple of words. Like: "Before I go to book, I'm going to read my bed." Then we'd all laugh uproariously for a few minutes, because isn't that the most hilarious thing ever!? I'm going to eat the rest of that kitchen in the chicken. Will you clean my dollar if I pay you a room? I'm going to take my teeth and brush a shower.

So then Jake, who had to be about 6 or 7, wanted to join in. "I'm going to go home, sit on a bear..." There was contemplative pause. He'd painted himself into a pretty tight corner. "... and eat." I'm going to home, sit on a bear, and eat. BEST SENTENCE EVER. We all laughed; the game had reached a new level of awesomeness. Every sentence that followed had to include sitting on a bear, and it's been one of our many inside jokes ever since.

July 30, 2009

Another wtf moment, brought to you by ksl

I'm going to need a new tag for this. (Which is quite the process for me... my meticulous side feels the need to go through all old posts and add the new tag where applicable. Now if only that meticulous side could get me to do the effing dishes.)

So anyway. There was this fight at a Trax station in Salt Lake City yesterday. Two men got in a fight on the platform and fell in front of an oncoming Trax car. So, naturally, on ksl.com, this news event requires a ranting article about how homeless people stink.

The comments are great too. They'd make a fantastic drinking game. Every time someone blames something on illegal immigrants, take a drink. Every time someone thinks more guns would solve the problem, take a drink. Doesn't matter what the problem is, or the topic of the article. Illegal immigrants cause every problem, and more guns would solve them.

Isn't chewing gum exciting enough?

Chewing this gum does not make me feel like I'm diving into an iceberg as it melts. It's supposed to change from cold to hot in my mouth as I chew. It doesn't seem to be working, but it does taste a lot like IcyHot.

July 27, 2009

The Half-Blood Prince

Movies in 15 minutes - Harry Potter: HBP recap is up at cleolinda's blog. If you didn't see the movie and want to know what happens, or if you did see the movie and want relive it again and again, or if you are bored and want to kill 15 minutes, I recommend reading it.

I've seen the movie twice, and there are a couple of things I'd change. I'm not going to write a list of how the book was different/better than the movie OMG, because I get that movies based on books are going to be different. Unless it's Watchmen, where the only difference is the addition of awkward sexy porno music.

The most egregious difference between the movie and book was probably the "1933- The Great Depression blah blah blah bankrobbers blah blah John Dillinger" text at the beginning and then the scene where Johnny Depp gets out of a car and shoots up a prison. But then the movie theater people realized they were playing Public Enemies and switched it back to Harry Potter. Not fast enough to anger a theater full of angry Mormon families whose children were no longer pure, having been exposed to 3 whole minutes of an R-rated movie. How crude.

The most annoying actual difference between the movie and the book, in my opinion, was the blah-ification of Ginny Weasley. She's awesome in the books. She's hilarious, smart, pretty, loyal, protective, and you totally get why Harry would like her. I am grateful that we never heard anything about that stupid "chest monster," but I didn't need to see superfluous shoe-tying scenes.

The only other difference that bugged me was replacing the electric Snape/Harry confrontation after Dumbledore's death with a night-time hiking trip through the woods that ends up getting a little tense. There was supposed to be shouting! Unforgivable curse attempts! Snape totally losing it after being called a coward! But nope. It's: "Oh btw I'm the half-blood prince, bbl!" I read somewhere that JK Rowling originally wanted Tim Roth to play Snape, and I think I would have liked him better. I think Alan Rickman totally looks like Snape, but I think his performance is always a little subdued. He's supposed to be this intense, angry, desperate, remorseful man and Alan Rickman's Snape seems so disinterested and tired.

Even with those complaints, I really liked this movie. It's the only Harry Potter I wanted to see in the theater more than once. The look of the movie is gorgeous and the three main kids have a lot of good interaction. Easily my favorite out of the entire film series so far.