I
picked today’s fractal Out of Ideas because I’m ‘out of ideas” for a better image to choose for this post. Ah well--on with the post…
-
In case you haven’t figured it out--I actually like super hero movies. I generally like parodies as well. I was predisposed to like Superhero Movie but I was sadly disappointed.
-
Admittedly, I went in with a bad frame of mind: Robyn and I went to the AMC at the Block of Orange (where even our DISCOUNTED tickets were $8.00!): we arrived at the Box Office about 12:05 and asked for the tickets for the 1:20 showing. We decided to wander around for a while but then we took a look at our tickets . . . Imagine my surprise when I saw they were for the friggin’ 12:10 showing! Luckily AMC likes to run 20+ minutes of previews and commercials so we only ended up missing the opening credits.
-
Superhero Movie has a lot of material to mine for jokes. Sadly, they mostly go for the first Spiderman movie. There are a few X-Men and Fantastic Four jokes everything else is pretty much ignored (and that‘s too bad--there are TONS of good jokes you could make at the expense of the Batman franchise!) There are a few good laughs but more “fart” jokes than even your average nine-year old would find acceptable. In fact, most of the jokes in this story are beaten so far into the ground that they come out on the far side of the planet (and they’re none the better for the trip.)
Disney “pretty boy” Drake Bell plays Rick Ryker/Dragonfly--the not-so-super-hero who’s story we follow. Veteran actors Leslie Nielson and Marion Ross are ill-served as his aunt and uncle. They gamely try to work with what they are given but not even the most talented and experienced actors can save themselves from complete drek. Former hunk Chris (now he calls himself “Christopher"--I guess because he needs the longer game to go with his added bulk) McDonald doesn’t completely suck as the villain (but he doesn‘t get much to work with.) I liked the bit with Tracy Morgan as a black (and very ghetto) “Professor X” but even that went on a bit too long. Oddly enough Pamela Anderson has a too brief stint as the Invisible Girl. (She completely blows Jessica Alba off the screen and even manages to look better in the costume.)
-
There is so little to recommend in this movie. The jokes aren’t funny, the FX are lame (and not in a good way) the acting never rises above leaden and there aren’t even a lot of laughs. Don’t waste your time or $$$ on this turkey.
-
FINAL GRADE: D-
The connection between today’s fractal and post is, at best, tenuous. I mainly chose this Zimple Zpiral because it is a spare image and I’ll be telling a simple story . . .
-
SO--on with the post!
-
Saturday March 29 there was an eco-awareness campaign called Earth Hour. I wish I could tell you who started it, where and how long it has been going on. But somehow I missed hearing about the event until the very DAY it was to be scheduled. The idea was to turn off as much power as you could for a single hour to show how much energy could be conserved if everyone made a concerted effort. (Even now I don‘t know if we were supposed to all turn off our power at the same time or if each time zone was supposed to go off at 8:00 PM.)
-
Personally I figured conservation is conservation--isn’t it? So Robyn and I decided we’d celebrate OUR “Earth Hour” from 6:00 to 7:00 PM (mainly because we don’t have very many candles and we’d be falling asleep in the dark if we waited until 8:00 PM) So at 6:00 PM we turned off all the lights in the house, turned off the fan and decided we’d spend an hour just being together.
-
The first half-hour or so was pretty easy: we were having dinner and there was enough light coming in from outside to see what we were eating. Putting the leftovers away was somewhat more difficult since clouds came over and the light level dropped by more than half.
-
The last half hour got more difficult as we went along: Robyn and I were both on the couch and we quickly discovered we had run out of topics to discuss so we sat there as the room got slowly darker and darker. (I hadn’t really thought until then how many little power-consumers we have in our home--the microwave, the computer monitor, the DVD/VCR . . . I could see all these little yellow, green and blue lights all over our kitchen, living and dining rooms. The last ten minutes of our “Earth Hour” I spent a lot of time looking at my watch waiting for the time to be up so I could turn on some lights, the TV or maybe the computer . . .
-
Still, our “Earth Hour” made both of us think--about how much we consume and how much we don’t think about the bounty we have--until it was taken away. We’ve decided to make “Earth Hour” a weekly event at our home: Saturdays from 6:00-7:00 PM we’ll be doing without power (at least as much as we can without unplugging an entire household of appliances) and we’re going to dedicate that time to each other. It ought to be interesting.
-
Maybe you should think about joining us . . .
I picked today’s image Curlicues because it was the most “Seuss-ian” I could find. I’d considered going with something large and g4ray but decided this would be more appropriate for the movie review.
-
Horton Hears A Who is the best big-screen adaptation of a Doctor Seuss book by far. Still, that’s not saying much considering the bloated messes that were The Cat In The Hat and How The Grinch Stole Christmas. Still, when you make a 90 minute feature out of a 28 page book (which is mostly illustrations) you are going to need A LOT of padding. (The animated version of “Grinch“ only ran half an hour but there were still two extended scenes and a song to pad out the story.)
-
The basic story remains the same in book and movie. Here Horton the Elephant (voiced by Jim Carrey in full-on crazy mode) moves from being sweet and sincere to the Jungle of Nool’s favorite “weird Uncle.” The kids love him and the parents think he’s sweet. Only “Sour Kangaroo (voiced by Carol Burnett channeling “Queen Aggravaine“) isn’t impressed. (In this movie Sour Kangaroo is a “Nice Nazi” who is determined to make sure HER jungles stays neat and clean and free from insanity. Horton and the Sour Kangaroo come into conflict when Horton hears a “Who” on a tiny speck of dust. The Mayor of Whoville (Steve Carrell doing his usual schtick) is thought of as a “boob” by the citizens and even struggles for cope with his family--96 daughters and one son--sad sack JoJo (briefly given voice by teen heartthrob Jesse McCartney). Seth Rogen (playing to type) gives voice to “Morton the Mouse” who is Horton’s best friend and (somewhat) ally. Will Arnett is the “Black-bottomed Eagle” Vlad. Amy Poehler, Jonah Hill, Dan Fogler and Jamie Presley also provide voices.
-
Computer animation continues to advance by leaps and bounds and “Horton” is nothing short of gorgeously done. (In fact, the animation is the single best reason to see this movie.) The texture and colors are perfect and Doctor’s Seuss’s drawings are wonderfully transferred into three-dimensions. Still, the script is flabby and bloated: sometimes it drags. Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell could both have been reigned in and the movie wouldn’t have suffered. I saw it in a theater full of families and there were a few chuckles but very few laugh-out-loud moments. If it had been funnier I could have enjoyed it a lot more.
-
Horton Hears A Who is a fine diversion for families. Kids will like it and there’s enough entertainment for the parents to keep them awake. Still, there is something sad about a movie made from a Doctor Seuss book that gets a PG-13 rating. Animation fans will enjoy it and fans of Jim Carrey will love it but if you don't fall into one of these categories you could easily miss the movie.
-
FINAL GRADE: B-
Today’s post begins with a fractal called Easter Eggy. It seems a bit light-hearted and frivolous for such a serious topic but maybe a little lightness is appropriate for such serious topic.
-
Robyn and I went down to San Diego for the Easter weekend: I could talk about the vicissitudes of the San Diego freeway system or maybe catalog the weird stains in our hotel room (of which there were many). I could also talk about having not ONE but TWO Easter Dinners with the respective sides of the family (and how I managed to pull that off) but I have a much sadder and more serious tale to relate.
-
Robyn’s father (who is 79) took a bad fall on February 2nd. Since then he has been shuttled back and forth from UCSD Medical Center to a Convalescent Hospital. He has been bedridden since the accident and is growing steadily weaker. He seems to have lost interest in almost everything: most importantly, he seems to have lost interest in his own recovery. A psychiatrist has put him on Zoloft but those meds have yet to kick in (and there is some possibility they never will.)
-
All of this is sad, but sadder still is the fact that Mr. P has done nothing to prepare for his death: he has no will, no plans for how he wants his final arrangements made and, worst of all, he had made no decision on whether or not he wanted “extraordinary measure” taken should the worse case scenario arise. When Robyn’s mother passed she was fully-prepared (everything was done and all the family had to do was file a few papers to expedite her wishes. Everyone assumed Mr. P had prepared as well so imagine our surprise when we find out NOTHING had been done.
-
Now we are in a race against time to get Robyn’s father’s affairs in order before the end comes. (It might be days or weeks: it might take years--nobody knows.) All we know is that his children are no frantically trying to organize things remotely and find documents when they have no idea where to look. This should be a time for the family to come together and support one another but instead it has turned into frantic runnings-about.
-
If you haven’t made your arrangements--do your family a favor and get them done. Hell, do YOURSELF a favor. Death or debilitating illness can come to even the young and your family shouldn’t have to guess what you might need/want. It doesn’t take long and the peace of mind it brings is worth it to everyone.
Today’s post begins with a fractal called Five Star. The symbolic military connection should be obvious and it the five stars are suitable markers for the five years.
-
Today marks the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, In a speech commemorating the occasion President George W. Bush said that going to war was the “right decision” and that “this is a fight American can and must win” although he admitted it was “harder and more costly than imagined.”). Other highlights of the speech include these gems…
-
* “retreat from Iraq now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States”
-
* “because we acted Saddam’s regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land.”
-
* “because we acted Saddam’s regime is no longer shooting at American and British Aircraft patrolling the ’no fly’ zone and defying the will of the United Nations.”
-
* “ because we acted the world is better and the United States of America is safer.”
-
However, President Bush failed to a few items in his speech…
-
* nearly 4000 American soldiers have been killed with over 20,000 more soldiers severely wounded and could be in rehab for the next 75 years. (I won’t even bother to comment on the sorry state of the Veterans’ Health-Care system.)
-
* over eighty-nine thousand (that’s 89,000( Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.
-
* so far, the War has cost five hundred billion dollars (that’s $500,000,000,000 for those of you who are fans of figures). The war is costing us TWELVE BILLION dollars a month.
-
* since the start of the Iraq War the price of gas has nearly tripled, the Dollar has reached new lows against currencies world wide and gold is selling at its highest price ever.
-
Now I’d like to respond to Mr. Bush’s comments…
-
* “can and must win” Mr. President? What is your definition of CAN? John McCain (who’s in a position to know) said we could be in Iraq for the next hundred years. How long is America willing to stay there before we give it up as the bad job it is? Do we have to bankrupt the country first? (Sadly, I think a lot of “pro-war” types would say yes.)
-
* “retreat would embolden Iran and encourage them to provide money for weapons of mass destruction” Mr. President? Excuse me--what makes you think they aren’t doing that already? We already KNOW Iran is developing nuclear weapons (and I don‘t mean like we “knew“ about the WMDs in Iraq) so it seems Iran is perfectly capable of developing those on their own without having to resort to a third party.
-
* “Saddam’s regime is no long paying the families of suicide bombers” Mr. President? Funny--that fact doesn’t seem to have reduced the number of suicide bombings, did it? What--is some other government paying them?
-
* “the world is better and the United States is safer” Mr. President? If this statement wasn’t so sad it would be laugh-out-loud funny. How can you--how can ANYONE--know that with certainty? Do you have sort of “alternate-reality viewer” that lets you look at the world as it might have been had we not gone in to Iraq? Come on folks! Get serious for one brief, shining moment!
-
The United States invaded Iraq on the premise that they had weapons of mass destruction. General Colin Powell went before the United Nations saying we had “conclusive evidence’ of this while C.I.A. Director George Tennant sat behind him, knowing that it simply wasn’t true (so he said in his recent book). Why this isn’t a national outrage is beyond me.
-
There are those who say “it doesn’t really matter WHY we went in. Now that we’re in Iraq we’re obligated to stay to ‘finish’ the job.” To this I say (as I have before) how long is that? How much more will we have to spend? How many more lives will be lost? And worst of all--how many American lives will be shattered bye their time in Iraq?
-
I know I’m talking to a brick wall here. The “pro-war” types will keep repeating the same old saws over and over again and nothing I can say, nothing I can show them will change that. We’ll be fighting this war until we’re broke, the Middle East is so much flat black glass or our Country goes bankrupt--the Terrorists don’t care which. Me, I’d like to think that Americans are smart enough to give up on a bad job and quit throwing good money after bad in a situation that will NEVER get any better.
-
Think about it.
If you can’t figure out why I chose Bubbles as the fractal for this image then there’s really no point in even discussing it!
-
Today Fan Yang world-renowned (according to his press at least) “Bubble Scientist” was to have enclosed an Asian Elephant in a gigantic soap bubble at the Discovery Science Center here in Santa Ana CA. It was to have been a “world record attempt” and would have been a nice little bit of press for both Yang and the D.S.C. But the venue decided to cancel the even because of strenuous protests from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The PETA People said the stunt was "cruel" and "exploitive." (although for the life of me I can't figure out how that mgiht be.)
-
The Discovery Science Center reportedly received thousands of e-Mails and letters (2500 and a bit) including one form former Game Show Host and Animal Activist Bob Barker. The D.S.C. said they canceled the even not because of the danger to the animal but because of potential trouble in the audience. (PETA and their fringe-y followers threatened to protest at the event.)
-
Please, don’t get me wrong--I LOVE animals--I really do! I volunteer with an animal rescue group and I support wildlife conservation. Groups like the SPCA and even PETA have done great things for animal advocacy--like trying to stop cosmetics testing on live animals, bringing attention to deplorable conditions in slaughterhouses, protesting the mass killing of whales and dolphins and even bringing attention to abuses that go into raising veal. Still, as with any group of fanatics--it’s entirely too easy to hop on the train to Crazyville. Sadly, this is one of those situations. If I could see ANY good potential harm to the elephant I’d be objecting but, try as I might, I can’t think of any reason it could be harmful. Fer Gossakes people! It’s a friggin’ gigantic BUBBLE! Can someone, ANYONE explain how this could possibly be harmful???
-
It always saddens me when institutions give in to pressure from the media or extremist groups. I’m also saddened that so many people can be so gullible. It’s nice that so many people CARE but I really wish more of said people would get informed raising such a ruckus. The bubble show would have been a pleasant, harmless diversion that given many children to “wildlife” that they wouldn’t otherwise have had the chance to see (and maybe encouraged them to protect.) The absolute worst part of a story like this is that it emboldens the crazies to more excess. And it’s too bad. Bubbles are such fun . . .
At first I thought I’d have trouble finding an image for Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day but then I remembered a fractal called Antique Brooch 2 and realized it would fit nicely with the review. Read the review and I think you’ll see what I mean.
-
Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day really IS an “antique gem.” Aside from a brief shot of a male derriere and some teasers of the female lead behind a towel it could have been made in 1948 as easily as 2008. Set in 1938 London, the costumes and set are “spot on” and there is no original music--just “period appropriate” songs. Even the story is a classic “romantic comedy” plot. Only the acting is somewhat contemporary--not nearly as stylized as what you would have seen in an old move. (Still, the modern acting isn’t intrusive and the style keeps the film approachable for contemporary audiences.)
-
Gwendolyn Pettigrew (played by Frances McDermond who rose to fame in Fargo) is a hard-bitten, highly-moralistic Nanny in 1938 London who has trouble keeping a job. Driven by desperation she “steals” a reference for an assignment with Delysia Lafosse (who was so perfect in Enchanted) is a young woman with a problem: she is juggling three men, Theatrical Producer Phil (Tom Payne) brutish but wealthy nightclub owner Nice (Mark Strong) or poor-but-honest piano player Michael (Lee Pace of Pushing Daisies). Will Delysia choose fame with Phil, wealth and privilege with Nick or “true love” with Michael--the only one who knows her, loves her and accepts her for who she is? Will Miss Pettigrew find love with Lingerie Designer Joe (Ciarán Hinds) or will Joe succumb to duplicitous Edythe (Shirley Henderson)? I won’t tip the secret off her but you can probably already guess: the fun in is how they get from beginning to end.
-
This is a movie designed for adults: the brief nudity aside it is an old-fashioned charmer. It is a frothy confection with a dash of sugar, a bit of spice and just a pinch of salt too keep the movie from being too cloying. Younger folks might find it dull but this is one of the few movies I can recommend for anyone over forty.
-FINAL GRADE: A-
I’m not sure why I chose Venus as the fractal for today’s post. Maybe it’s because she was the Goddess of “Love”--or maybe it has something to do with venereal disease. Either way--it almost works for today’s post.
-
Eliot Spitzer graduated from Harvard Law School at the top of his class--so how is that he can be the dumbest man on the planet? Unless you’ve been living under a rock you know that he has been identified as using a prostitute. At present he hasn’t been indicted although he’s as much as admitted violating the Mann Act. (For those of you who don‘t know the Mann Act makes it illegal to “transport girls across state lines for immoral purposes.) Will he resign? Yep--it’s either that or face impeachment by Republican Congressmen. Will he face charges? Likely: I don’t think Republicans will pass up the opportunity to drag a high-profile Democrat through the mud. Still, if Spitzer is hung it won’t be for soliciting prostitution. (”Johns“ rarely face the same legal trouble as the girls who provide the service--but that‘s a subject for another post.) In the end though, that’s not important: I just want to know what he was thinking!
-
Spitzer had a reputation for being “squeaky clean.” He was described as the “Sheriff of Wall Street” because of his vigorous prosecution of high-profile financial crimes. It was even rumored that he could one day be the first Jewish President of the United States. Now that is all in ruins because of a dalliance with a $1,000 an hour hooker. To add insult to injury his “tryst” took place the on February 13th--the just before Valentine’s Day.- -
This dude was a Federal Prosecutor for God’s sake! How did he think he could get away with this? I think more than anything else this is what I’d like to know. Is he a sex addict? (News reports indicate he liked to engage in “unsafe” behavior and that he spent upward of $80,000 on prostitutes so that seems to indicate a pathology. Did his addiction simply blind him with a sense of his own untouchability? (If he truly is a sex addition that is the likely answer.) Did he consider the consequences of his own actions? Did he think of how this would affect his wife and three teenage daughters? (Sex addicts never consider the ramifications of their actions--but powerful people never do in any case.)
-
Look at the video and pictures of Silda Spitzer with her husband: she’s seriously pissed off. Will the marriage survive once he’s out of office? (Right now I wouldn’t bet on it.) What I find sadder than anything else about this sordid story is the focus on her. Whether she “stands by her man” or divorces him--she still loses: the public and media will still criticize her.
-
In the end I suppose we’ll have to wait for the inevitable “tell all” book to have those questions answered: whether we’ll be able to trust the answers is another matter entirely (but one for another day.) I doubt Spitzer will ever recover from this debacle: his political career is over and he’ll never hold a high-profile job again. Still, he’ll get along somehow.
-
Was it worth it, Eliot? I hope that girl rocked your world because you seriously torpedoed yourself. Sexual Addiction is a serious problem but it’s no excuse for bad behavior. A truly ironic footnote in this sad affair is that Spitzer was caught by a probe he initiated. That’s almost funny.
-
Repeat after me. Eliot Spitzer is a big fat idiot!
When I’m commenting on matters religious I usually end up going to the “Stained Glass” series of fractals--for obvious reasons. When I saw Stained Glass 24 with that big old “X” right in the center of the image I knew it would be the one. (The only thing that could have made it better would have been if that “X” had been black instead of green…
-
We’ve all heard of the “seven deadly sins”--but, can you name all seven? Robyn and I were able to name five each (but oddly-enough we couldn’t name the SAME five.) Just for the record they are Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth. Now Pope Benedict XVI has added seven NEW “deadly sins.” for the modern age. These new deadly sins include pollution, obscene riches, genetic engineering, taking drugs, pedophilia, abortion and causing social injustice. It’s an interesting list and there is a lot to talk about. I won’t get into whether the Pope (or any Church for that matter) has the right to determine what actions place our souls in jeopardy of eternal damnation: that‘s just going to cause annoyance and bring trouble down on my head. I also won’t get into the Biblical ramifications of this list: that’s a debate for theologians--not an uneducated blogger. I do feel the need to make a few comments on the list.
-
POLLUTION: I can kindasorta buy this one--although I find myself wondering if/when there is a dividing line between venial and moral sins. Does driving an SUV constitute a mortal sin? (I tend to think “yes“--especially when some putz in a monster wagon nuzzles up next to me in a parking lot so I can‘t get in my car.) How about failing to recycle? Using detergents with phosphates that can get into ground water or the ocean? Being “Green” is fashionable right now (even if something we all should be a bit more aware of what we do to our environment) but is this really practical for the average person?
-
OBSCENE WEALTH: this one I love--mainly because I want to know when wealth becomes “obscene.” Jesus himself said (in Matthew 9:24) “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Great wealth, like high office often requires moral compromise--but what if you earn your wealth fairly and honestly? Does simply having the money and not doing good with it constitute a sin? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
GENETIC MANIPULATION: frankly I have trouble getting on board with this one. I can see where people would object to eugenics to breed a “master race” but you have to wonder exactly what constitutes genetic manipulation. (I know the Catholic Church objects to stem-cell research even though there is plenty of potential for health benefits.) Frankly “genetic manipulation” has been going on for hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years! They call it “selective breeding” but it’s genetic manipulation. Do we stop that?
-
TAKING DRUGS: I don’t have a problem with this one--just a question. What constitutes “drugs” exactly? Does alcohol count as a drug? Alcohol abuse is rampant but mostly legal and wine IS a big part of Church history and ritual. Makes for an interesting problem, doesn’t it?”
-
PEDOPHILIA: I can see this one because of the whole “corruption of the innocent “angle, but I find myself wondering if this one goes quite far enough? What about those who push sex on the young? Should George Michael go to hell because he “wants your sex”? How ‘bout Abercrombie and Fitch models? Or the cast of Dawson’s Creek? (They are already going to hell for making egregious television--we already know that!) And while we’re on the subject--where’s adultery on this list? I guess that was covered in the FIRST seven deadly sins…
-
ABORTION: I’m pro ‘choice.’ ‘nuff said. There’s no point in arguing this one. Volumes could be written on this and no minds would be changed.
-
CAUSING SOCIAL INJUSTICE: I like this one--I really do. It’s nice to see the Church holding world leaders accountable for policies that disenfranchise others. Still, it’s going to cause a lot of debate among Republicans.
-
I do find myself a bit annoyed by the Pope singling out the “secularized West” in his commentary (although I don’t know if this is a genuine concern or simply me taking exception to a perceived slap.) These problems are truly global and we really should be concerned. But are these truly “Mortal” Sins--I don’t know…
Picking a fractal for today‘s review of The Other Boleyn Girl was harder than it seemed. I’ve already used most of my of “royal” images (A Regal Image, Corona) so I needed to move somewhere else. Thus I chose Crown of Stars 26. I thought the colors were suitably rich and the shapes wonderfully baroque. The “crown” conjures images of royalty and there were several real “stars” in the movie. So--on with the review!
-
It was inevitable that the story of Henry VIII would be brought to the screen: after all the guy had six wives, hordes of mistresses and had a history of changing friends as often as his mood changed (then offing the former close friends on trumped-up charges). This sex and blood-soaked saga was ripe for visual exploitation. Showtime went graphic their series The Tudors. The Other Boleyn Girl chose to go a more “tasteful” route The “PG-13” Rating insures the watching isn’t going to see anything disturbing.
-
There’s really no need to rehash the story here: if you don’t know it you can probably look it up easily enough. Suffice it to say that the story is told mainly from the point of view of the Boleyn family. In this story the fact that men trade their daughters for political advancements seems to be the driving force. The Duke of Norfolk (played by David Morrissey) schemes to place his niece Anne (Natalie Portman) as King Henry’s (Eric Bana) latest mistress--but it is Mary (Scarlet Johansen) who catches his eye. This sets up a competition between the once-loving sisters which leads to the inevitable tragic conclusion.
-
The Actors playing the Boleyn family all fare pretty well with the exception of Kristin Scott Thomas as the girl's long-suffering mothere (who only gets to complain about the sorry lot of the state of women.) Eric Bana doesn’t leave much of an impression as the king--but he wears the clothes well and has nice abs. (I don’t know if that’s because he really can’t act or simply because he’s not given much to do in this role.) The movie is beautifully shot and the historical costumes are lovely to look at. Personally, I had some trouble with the pace of the movie--at lot of if went way too slow for me but there were a few places where the action would skip ahead by months with nary a word--just BOOM! Still, the action is easy-enough to follow--even if the viewer doesn’t know the history. (I know at least some of the history though and I often found myself wishing for more details.) The movie tries to skew younger with the cast and story but it’s just not sexy enough to appeal to the under 40 crowd. It will do well at the Oscars in the costume and maybe makeup categories but I doubt you’ll see it anywhere else.
-
I could recommend The Other Boleyn Girl for fans of historical and romance films. If you want a little more action in your history you might try looking for The Tudors.
-
FINAL GRADE: B-
I picked today’s fractal Out of Ideas because I’m ‘out of ideas” for a better image to choose for this post. Ah well--on with the post…
