>> Saturday, January 16, 2010

I finally got to see it. Not in 3D though. Oh well. It was still worth seeing in regular D.

I never ceased to be amazed how Jim Cameron can take what would ordinarily be a flimsy or trite story, flesh it out a bit and make it look outstanding on screen. A critic (Ty Burr of the Boston Globe) said "In terms of plot, then, this is “Dances With Wolves.’’ Seriously: It’s the same movie, re-imagined as a speculative-anthropological freak-out." It's totally true. It IS "Dances with Navi." That's totally Jake Sully's journey as a character. It makes me wonder what Cameron has against hiring a writer. Whenever I watch Titanic, my favorite parts are always watching the boat sink. Cameron is always at this best when doing action. Dialogue? Not always so much. There were a few times when certain lines were spat out that I thought, "Really? That's the best you could come up with? All that money and you can't hire a writer? Damn, ego really does get in the way." It's better written than Titanic for sure, but still... It's a testament to the actors Cameron hires that they make some of these lines believable.

It looks stunning though. The landscapes, the blue people, the creatures and even the translucent flatscreen computers used by the military. It's quite mesmerizing, and I'm not going to try to put it into words. I totally believed that this world existed, which is a technological triumph. I would like to see it again in 3D, probably when I can get a good seat.

But I think the best parts in the movie were two characters: Col. Miles Quaritch and Neytiri.

Every great popcorn movie needs a first-rate villain, Quaritch provides this in spades. I disliked him from his first few lines and despised him within the first 15 minutes. Perfect villain. And kudos to the fact that they didn't just kill him in the air strike but had him down on the ground fighting both Jake AND Neytiri. Bad guys like this are hard to top. I totally agree with Kristopher Tapley: give this guy a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

I think I may have a new favorite heroine in Neytiri. Utterly fierce and so genuine in her feelings for Jake. She was the one that really made me believe in these creatures as genuine beings. I totally want to be her best friend after seeing Avatar. Cameron may not always write the best dialog, but he always comes up with excellent female characters. I totally appreciate seeing a chick allowed to save the guy in a movie and not be helpless. It's about time. I came across some news a week or so ago that mentioned Zoe Saldana deserving to be nominated as Best Actress for this performance.
When I first saw the film, the remote possibility of Ms. Saldana getting a nomination for her performance was tantalizing. I rationalized that Sigourney Weaver’s turn, part CG and part human, was more likely to be the breakthough nomination. But I have been struck by how many people, Academy members included, have remarked on the emotional weight of Saldana's performance holding the movie together. She is both very physical and very raw emotionally… something we have not really seen since Ms. Weaver in Mr. Cameron’s Aliens.

There is a lot of education to be done here. My interviews with Cameron and WETA’s Joe Letteri took me through both the intent of the filmmakers and how this first-time ever process truly allowed the actors to do all of their traditional acting work, even as they were computerized.

But the bottom line is, this is a strong piece of acting. It is a full-out performance. And by the middle of the film, you believe in who Naytiri is, above and beyond being 10 feet tall, blue, and nearly naked. This is a testament to Zoe Saldana’s work. She deserves serious consideration for a nomination, as any other actress who had given a performance like this would.
I heartily agree. I would much rather Zoe get nominated than Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side.


"Satan" Responds to Pat Robertson

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.


—written by Lily Coyle and published in the Minneapolis StarTribune


The Daily Dumbass: Pat Robertson loves proving he's a jackass at least once a year

>> Wednesday, January 13, 2010

(H/T Salon)


And you know, Christy, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the Prince, true story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. . . the Island of Hispaniola is one island cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is, is, prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty, same Islands, uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I'm optimistic something good may come, but right now we're helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.
I wonder how long we'll have to wait for an apology. He apologized after he agreed with Jerry Falwell's ridiculous comments regarding 9/11 several years ago. Here's what was said almost nine years ago:
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen."

Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."

Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."

Update (01/13/10)

Rachel Maddow mocked the odiousness of Pat Robertson's comments:

And then the Haitian Ambassador to the U.S. weighed in:

And has Pat Robertson issued an apology yet? Well, the only kind he's interested in making is one where he doesn't really apologize for what he said. From the official Pat Robertson website:
CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 --On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.

Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN
Still a first rate jackass.


It definitely would have made it better

Regarding Up in the Air, Jeffrey Wells writes,

As a reader of Walter Kirn's "Up In The Air", Matthew Morettini suspects that Jason Reitman shot Up In the Air with an undercurrent of fatality in mind -- i.e., George Clooney's Ryan Bingham suspecting his days may be numbered.

Those who haven't seen the film should know that spoilers follow.

"Kirn's 2001 novel is told in the first-person from Bingham's point-of-view," Morettini begins. "By the time we reach the third act, after a series of strange and confusing episodes, it becomes clear that Bingham is an unreliable narrator. It is only in the last few pages that we learn he has been suffering from seizures, black-outs for hours on end, and has an upcoming appointment at the Mayo clinic for treatment of this unnamed affliction.

"In short the book has a twist ending that makes you go back and rethink everything you read. I think director-cowriter Reitman had the same ending in mind when he made the movie only to pull his punches in post.

"The first clue to Reitman's intention is the 'Would you like the cancer?/Would you like the can, sir?' joke during Bingham's maiden flight. When I saw this scene, I immediately knew the meaning of the signal since I'd read the book. My presumption was that unlike Kirn in the novel, Reitman was going to be a bit more clever about planting clues about Bingham's health throughout the story.

"As it stands in the film now, without the twist, the 'cancer/can, sir' joke is an odd bit that doesn't really make sense. It's merely a joke that seems to have been written to demonstrate Bingham is preoccupied with thoughts of cancer and death.

"There are other hints of mortality. If you go back and watch the movie again in your mind, almost everything else Bingham does makes more sense if we suspects he may be dying.
It would have made the movie better, and definitely that ending, which made me think we need a sequel so Ryan can find his true love in that one, was missing something. Without that health subplot, it looks as if all of Ryan's changes were made in retrospect to Natalie's prompting rather than something he could have been mulling over for awhile.


Well, that didn't take too long

This is what I noted back in August:

Robert Pattinson in particular is trying to hide out.

Am told by Vancouver airport sources that they’ve never had a request like the one they had for him the other day to get him out of YVR, a stealth exit so as not to be surrounded by crazies. Said the source: that kid is afraid for his life
Poor kid. The Twilight psychos are probably just fueling the probability that Pattinson is going to turn to drugs to escape his problems just like everyone else in Hollywood.
Sure enough, what appeared today? A blind item that can only be about Robert Pattinson:
Watching how he copes

It can be hard to breathe when you’re as young and as famous as he is. He copes in public situations not unlike many of his counterparts in the industry – as alarming as this sounds, a bump here and there is pedestrian in Hollywood. He’s been known however to lock himself in the bathroom and blow until he can face the world. But a word of advice to our fresh star – people know, and they are watching, and they are offering money to those around you, some friendly, some unfriendly, to catch you in a compromising position. So be careful who you trust. Fortunately, for your sake, so far they’ve refused to sell you out. But everyone has a price. People with children and mortgages have a price. And eventually someone will cave. And if you’re still hiding out in the toilet and rubbing your nose in it, suffice to say that photo can set them up for life. Careful now.
Poor kid. I bet he's beginning to contemplate a life in theater on the West End. Whatever he can do to get away from the TwiHard Nation. Considering the strangling attempt last summer it looks like it can only get worse, not better.


This Week in God, Continued

>> Tuesday, January 12, 2010

I thought the timing of this segment was ironic given all that's been going on around me lately.

Statements that I thought were pretty rational. So rational that it almost amazes me there has to be a court case regarding this. But then, interracial marriage statutes were struck down via a court case.

Anyway, I realized I forgot a few of points that I wanted to make earlier.
  1. Sort of related to the "big tent" vs. "small tent" argument: A couple from southern California joined our church in mid-October. They seemed to be coming fairly regularly until the final "listening" group session. I noticed that the mister was nodding along to what I said when I stood up and gave my ramble. One of my dad's cousins is an ELCA minister in Cali. She said that they hadn't heard a peep regarding any dissension regarding the August decision in her parts. I'm of the opinion that this couple heard (anti-gay) things said during that meeting and decided either to not come back or not come back until pastor returns from maternity leave. I don't know which, but they were sitting next to Mrs. Unrepentant-Sinners. She's a nice lady in that she's not an axe murderer, but some of the things that come out of her mouth make my jaw drop. One such example would be when she publicly thanked some organization during church prayers for translating the Bible into Portuguese. Yeah, that's right. Portuguese! I guess she thinks the Roman Catholic church doesn't know how to proselytize because I don't know how else to interpret it. But that's the sort of thing that I don't think these people who want to leave the ELCA realize: they're making it much more difficult to gain more members. Yeah, they might gain new members in the near-future because those who are of like mind are looking for the same. But survey after survey shows that young people are more likely to not be of that persuasion. Which means those churches leaving the ELCA all have expiration dates on them.
  2. Regarding the miniature "Exodus": I was talking to the organist during coffee hour. She's not a member of the church; she's Catholic but has been the organist for 15 years or so. Anyhow, when I mentioned to her that some people didn't like the decision to stay within the ELCA and were going to leave, she said that it's pretty hard to find a congregation like this one. Which I think is a fair statement given that our congregation tends to be a bit more outgoing than some of the other congregations in the area. There's a different couple within the church who joined within the past ten years. They actually attended the church that is having a vote to leave the ELCA next week for a year, long before they joined our church. They said the whole time they attended that church that no one ever asked them about joining or ever tried to get to know them during coffee hour. Talk about cliquish. 
  3. Regarding the biblical "literalists": I've already made a few statements about how some folks are such literalists in that they take the condemnation regarding "homosexuality" in the Bible literally, yet not the execution of women who aren't virgins upon marriage. I've been reading The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died for about the past month. I came across a passage that sums up biblical literalists perfectly for me:
    The Syriac churches inherited the approach to Bible criticism associated with Antioch, which demanded that texts be put into proper historical and cultural context, rather than (as in Alexandria) being used as the basis for spiritual allegories. Bar-Hebraeus saw little value in reading or hearing the scriptures unless one approached them with a view to true understanding. "As hunger is not satisfied by water, nor thirst by bread, so the Initiate, who wishes to look within the Sinaitic cloud [the Divine], gains small profit by hearing the Scriptures being read." Well into what Europeans call the high Middle Ages, scholars approached the scriptures with what seems to a modern readership like good sense. In the 1220s, Solomon of Basra responded wearily to the painful literalism with which many lesser thinkers read biblical metaphors:
    The things which certain stupid men invent, who indulge their fancy, and give bodily form to the punishment of sinners and the reward of the just and righteous, and say that there is at the resurrection a reckoning and a pair of scales, the Church does not receive; but each one of us carries his light and his fire within him, and his heaviness and his lightness is found in his own nature. Just as stone and iron naturally possess the property of falling to the earth, and as the air naturally ascends upward on account of its rarity and its lightness; so also in the resurrection, he that is heavy and lying in sins, his sins will bring him down; and he that is free from the rust of sin, his purity will make him rise in the scale.
    To paraphrase Solomon, the Bible is a complex text that makes rich use of metaphor and other literary devices, so that we hear of the gates of hell, the fires of hell, or of souls being weighed in the balance. But only an idiot understands these images in the sense of real, literal gates, scales, or fires instead of thinking spiritually how sins shaped one's destiny. (p. 89-90)
    Yup, just because the Bible says something doesn't mean you can throw your thinking cap away.


This Week in God

Last Sunday, the 3rd, I got really irritated by the interim pastor's sermon. Our regular pastor is out on maternity leave until late February. He started off talking about Babylon and Tiamat and Marduk. Fine. No problem there. I don't mind history. Then at some point he started making comments about the ELCA's recent decision and said they were "moving away from the Word of God." Dude's gotta know that that's a touchy subject right there. He's a retired pastor. He should know better than to make comments stirring up strife within a congregation that isn't his.

After that, I couldn't pay much attention to what he was saying. I kept thinking, hey, we don't stone women who aren't virgins when they're married like Deuteronomy says, does that mean we're not following the "Word of God?" We don't stone people for adultery and divorce is legal. Should we start stoning them so we can "obey" the "Word of God." I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people that eat bacon and ham in the church including you (interim pastor) and doesn't that make them and you "unclean?" He then went on to quote a passage from a United Church of Christ minister supposedly to make his point about how off base the direction the ELCA is going. I don't remember a single word he said because I was thinking, "Hey, aside from Exodus the Bible is pretty much a pro-slavery document. Should we reinstitute it so we can "follow" the "Word of God?" Yeah, I was pretty pissed in the moment, but my dad said that the UCC minister's quote totally repudiated what the interim was trying to say against the ELCA. Figures.

Then towards the end of coffee hour, there was a small group of about five people chitchatting. It was comprised of Mr. & Mrs. What-Have-You-Done-For-Me-Lately, Mrs. Unrepentant-Sinners and another couple. I could hear Mrs. What-Have-You-Done-For-Me-Lately exclaiming, "It used to be a choice, now it's genetic? Which is it really?" Yeah, she's going right back to her "it's a choice!" mentality about the gays. I don't think I have to explain that genetic studies are fairly recent and certainly wouldn't have played a part in society 100 or 500 years ago.

On the way home, one of my parents mentioned that they overheard someone telling the church president that they had been reviewing Robert's Rules of Order and figured out a way to get something on the agenda that normally wouldn't have been on the agenda. Presumably, this person wanted to have a vote on whether or not to leave the ELCA since this was a person who did not like the decision from August. I was just like, "You know, I really wish one of the older ladies sitting up in the front would speak up. None of them want to leave regardless of whether or not they liked the decision." I think some of these people making a huff would reconsider their attitudes just a bit if one of them did speak.

At a certain point, all of this ruckus begins to look like much ado about nothing. Nothing within the church has changed. The pastor hasn't changed; she'll be back after maternity leave. This church is highly unlikely to ever have a gay pastor given that it's in Utah and gay pastors in general are a small minority anyway.

I was actually upset over this last week. I spent a couple days looking online for resources possibly to make an argument for staying in the ELCA. I actually came across a letter written by Rev. Eric Lemonholm of Grace Lutheran in Detroit Lakes, which is where my parents spend half the year but attend a different church. I thought he made some excellent points such as:

  • the decision made by Churchwide is to allow local churches the authority to make up their own minds about this issue, recognizing that we do not have a consensus – the decision does not force any congregation to call gay or lesbian pastors. It is a step in the ELCA toward greater local congregational independence. In this case, a vote to leave the ELCA would indicate that one disagreed that local churches should have that authority or independence. There are denominations with less diversity on political issues like this – the Missouri Synod, for example – but do we really want to go there? Do we want to go from being a ‘big tent’ church to being a ‘small tent’ church?
  • the ‘either-or’ way of thinking that some have fallen into: either the majority of the ELCA has to agree with our interpretation of the biblical law about homosexuality, or we and our congregation leave the ELCA – ASAP. Why are those the only two possibilities? Why the sudden urgency? When Martin Luther had real disagreements about core Gospel issues with the Roman Catholic Church, he did not leave the church, nor did he want to; he wanted to stay in the Catholic Church and work to reform it. Instead, Luther was kicked out. Some of us have a disagreement with the majority of ELCA members about a non-core issue of biblical interpretation of the law (more on this later), and immediately want to leave the ELCA? Ask yourself, why is this such a big issue? Why have we fallen into either/or, win/lose thinking? Why is it either my way or the highway?
  • in the long run, this issue will be like earlier church controversies such as the debate about the ordination of women: that debate was not settled on purely biblical grounds. We probably all had friends or family on all sides of that issue in the past. People on both sides of that issue had biblically-based, heartfelt beliefs; the issue was resolved over time using Scripture and sound reason, and we moved on; those who divided themselves from the wider church because of that disagreement were, in the end, in the wrong. It is often only in retrospect that the issues are clear.
Totally rational arguments. My mom has been irritated that those who want to leave the ELCA are doing this when our pastor is out on maternity leave, so that she can't put her two cents into the debate. A fair point considering that she's not able to write anything like the above points while she's away. My mom specifically remembers one of pastor's last sermons before going on maternity leave talking about togetherness: "And we can only accomplish it together. I cannot stress to you all enough how essential every single one of you is to what we are about."

This Sunday the interim didn't give what I felt was a strife-causing sermon like he had the week before. The only thing I remember him talking about was how everyone is a child of God. Well, guess what. Those who wanted to leave the ELCA decided that this Sunday was going to be their last Sunday. Apparently they don't think that gays in long-term, monogamous relationships or those that are married qualify as children of God. I overheard one lady after church saying to one of her friends that she couldn't stay another Sunday if we weren't going to leave the ELCA. Her way or the highway.

I don't know for sure how many are going. At this point it looks to be about eight people that I know of. Not a large number but population-wise this isn't a large church. Another guy said that he was just taking a break from church for awhile.

These people are leaving because the church council decided that there would not be a vote on the issue. Not enough people on the council were for it. Don’t know where they’re going to go. This is in northern Utah, the land of not so many Lutheran churches. There are currently 3 ELCA churches within the county including the one they’re leaving. There is also a Missouri Synod church in town. Supposedly, some of them are going to attend this non-Lutheran church in town called “The Genesis Project.” (Yeah, the name totally reminds me of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.) This Genesis Project church doesn’t appear to be associated with any kind of larger church body, but one of my friends, who is Catholic, referred to them as “the born-agains.” I suspect that a few of them may return after a few months. Probably not all of them though.

One of the other ELCA churches within the county is having a vote on this next Sunday. I have no idea how things are going over there. Basically two of the three ELCA churches are not going to have a vote on this. I’ve heard the third ELCA church in the county is not going to have a vote either; apparently they have too many other fish to fry. But back to the church that is going to have a vote. I suspect that they may actually vote to leave, considering this is Utah. IF that happens, I think it’s possible that those who wanted to stay within the ELCA may leave that church to go to one of the other ELCA churches, possibly ours since its closer. Those who left our church may have a Lutheran church nearby that they would feel comfortable with because I really can't imagine some of them permanently at "The Genesis Project."

One of the people who left/is leaving was the financial secretary/counter. I've been asked if I would do it. I said sure. There goes any excuse for getting out of church on Sunday mornings when my parents aren't here.


Lost: Season 4

>> Monday, January 11, 2010

I knew Locke had to be the one in that coffin. But when Ben came in the room, I briefly thought it might be Sayid. Silly me.

Amazing how they keep this thing going, those writers. Obviously the best move the show ever did was to cap the number of seasons. It's almost inching on soap opera status with a cliff hanger at the end of every episode. I'm just so relieved that I only have one more season to watch and catch up. It's almost borderline ridiculous how many interweaving stories there are.

I'm now of the assumption that Penny's father was the originator of The Dharma Project, due to his reference that the island was his before it was Ben's. Of course, I don't want Penny to die because she and Desmond should be together. Hey, does Desmond have to go back to the island with Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and the baby? I'm not too clear on that part.

But the part I am clear on, is that Sawyer always gets the best lines.
James 'Sawyer' Ford: You ready to give us the name, Gizmo?
John Locke: He's not going to tell you who the spy is on their boat, James.
James 'Sawyer' Ford: Yeah, why not?
John Locke: Because that's the only thing keeping him alive.
James 'Sawyer' Ford: Well here's an idea: why don't we take a gun, point it to his big toe and send that little piggy to the market... And if he still doesn't want to tell us, move on to the roast beef. Why don't we do that?
John Locke: Because then we'd have to carry him.
Damn, I had totally forgotten about that nursery rhyme.


I got some tickets!

>> Sunday, January 10, 2010

Yesterday morning I got up at 6:30 and went down to wait outside of the Egyptian Theater to get my pass to buy tickets as an Ogden local. It was 20 degrees outside, so of course I took my parka. There was already a line, as I suspected there would be, but it wasn't around the block. I got in line at about 6:50. After standing in line a few minutes, I realized I should have put on my leggings underneath my polar fleece pants. I would have been just a little bit warmer.

I chatted with two other ladies in line. Both were fairly recent transplants to Utah. Both moved from northern California, the Bay Area specifically (Marin County and Palo Alto). Sometimes I'm always shocked that people moved to Utah of their own free will. But they both said they liked it here since it was much cheaper to live and had such nice scenery. And hey, it hosts one of the most renown film festivals in the world. A big plus every January.

And both of them were surprised when I told them that Sundance films playing in Ogden during the festival was a relatively new thing. I don't know when they started, but it must be just within the past ten years. Peery's Egyptian Theater didn't reopen until 1997. Sundance didn't play very many films in SLC until the mid-90s. I remember seeing New Jersey Drive at the Tower back in 1995. It was one of the only things that wasn't playing all the way in Park City that we could get tickets too. I even remember filling out the Audience Award voting slip there. Something that I'm going to get a chance to do this year! Yipee!

A little after 7 am they started handing out the passes that said what time you could come back and purchase your tickets. I came back at noon and purchased tickets for three shows. Tickets are $15 a pop, so I chose very carefully from the selection playing up in Ogden. I got tickets to
  • Hesher on Saturday, Jan 23rd. (A mysterious, anarchical trickster descends on the lives of a family struggling to deal with a painful loss. Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Natalie Portman, Rainn Wilson, Devin Brochu, Piper Laurie, John Carroll Lynch) It sounded somewhat interesting. I picked this solely on the cast: JGL & Portman. It's competing in the US Dramatic category.
  • WAITING FOR SUPERMAN on Sunday, Jan 24th. Yes, the title is entirely in capital letters according to the film guide; it's not a typo. (Waiting for Superman examines the crisis of public education in the United States through multiple interlocking stories—from a handful of students and their families whose futures hang in the balance, to the educators and reformers trying to find real and lasting solutions within a dysfunctional system.) I'll be seeing this one with my parents. It should be interesting to hear my mom's comments as a former teacher. It's competing in the US Documentary category.
  • Mother & Child on Saturday, Jan 30th. (The lives of three women – a physical therapist, the daughter she gave up at birth three decades ago, and an African American woman seeking to adopt a child of her own – intersect in surprising ways. Cast: Naomi Watts, Annette Bening, Kerry Washington, Jimmy Smits, Samuel L. Jackson.) Also chose this one based on the cast and am seeing this one with my parents. US Premiere of this film
I am also looking at trying to get tickets to a few other films playing either in Park City or SLC such as 8: The Mormon Proposition, The Runaways, A Film Unfinished, Cane Toads, Blue Valentine, Restrepo, I'm Pat _______ Tillman, and CASINO JACK and the United States of Money.


Stop stealing my snow!

You know who you are.


  © Blogger template Webnolia by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP