"Four Christmases" One Big Mess

I chose Christmas Surprise as the image for today’s post for several reasons. I’m reviewing a “Christmas” movie (so something with “Christmas” in the title was needed and several nasty surprises play parts in the movie so the image fits on both counts. Also--I just liked it enough to use it here--so there! Now on with the review…
-
Around this time every year some major movie studio puts out a feel good, family movie for the season. Four Christmases ain’t it for this year: the movie tries but falls flat. Worse, it lacks subversive charm (like Bad Santa) so you can’t even feel good about feeling bad. Probably the movie’s biggest sin is that it leaves patrons saying “well that’s two hours of my life I’ll never get back.” It’s not a BAD movie--really it isn’t--but honestly, Four Christmases is just so un-good!
-
Brad (Vince Vaughn in full self-parody mode) and Kate (Reese Witherspoon cute as always but with a full Charmectomy) are two happy San Francisco singles who have been together for three years. Every Christmas season they gleefully avoid their families and fly off to a wonderful, exotic vacation but we know there’s going to be trouble (even if we haven’t seen the previews) even before they get to the airport. (Kate is complaining “I think we’ve done this vacation before.”) When their flight is cancelled (and Brad and Kate get splashed all over the news) they end up having to visit all four parents (divorced and involved with other people) in one day.
-
First up is Brad’s white-trash Dad Howard (Robert Duvall, phoning in his grumpy-bear performance) and low-rent “Ultimate Fighting” brothers Denver and Dallas (Jon Favreau, looking like a steroid stallion and country music star Tim McGraw who barely makes an impression). This scene has a few funny bits but it’s mostly cringe-inducing (and not in a good way.) Next up they visit Kate’s Mom Marilyn (Mary Steenburgen) who has found a new life with rock-and-roll preacher Pastor Phil (Dwight Yoakum--NOT ageing well) and Kate’s “perefect” older sister Courtney (Kristen Chenowith in a spot-on performance). More unfunny business happens at home and later at Church when Brad and Kate are drafted into playing Mary and Joseph for the Christmas Service (where we get to see what a self-centered jerk Brad really is). Then we’re off to see Brad’s Mom hippie-chick Mom Paula (Sissy Spacek, completely wasted here). She’s shacking up with Brad’s former best friend Darryl. Finally things come completely apart just as the hapless pair arrive at Kate’s Dad Creighton’s place--before everything gets tied up in a pretty package by movie’s end. John Voight does a nice job as the guy who Explains It All.
-
There are some good jokes along the way (but a lot of the movie just makes you want to cringe (and, as I said earlier, NOT in a good way.) Brad’s a jerk, as hypersensitive and controlling as he is self-centered and Kate is a cold fish who is just as manipulative and controlling as Brad in her own way. Nobody except the two Dad’s are remotely self-aware or are particularly likeable. The language is pretty rough and there is some violence and gross humor but no nudity. We only paid $6.50 for our tickets which is why I’m probably giving it a “C” instead of a “D-”. There’s nothing really WRONG with the movie--but there’s not a lot right with it either.
-
FINAL GRADE: C-

The Most Annoying People At Thanksgiving Dinner

Today’s post begins with a fractal called Give Thanks. What better image could I pick for a post involving Thanksgiving--however indirectly? Now--on with today’s rant!
-
The good folks over at Holytaco.com (love that name!) have just released their list of the 7 Most Annoying People At Thanksgiving Dinner. Check out their commentary using this link if you’ve a mind: I like the conversation snippets. http://www.holytaco.com/7-most-annoying-people-thanksgiving . I don’t know how they came up with the list but I feel I have to comment. Enjoy--unless you’ve made other plans.
-
7) THE RELIGIOUS RELATIVE
You would think that as a self-professed Christian I’d have more tolerance for this sort of guest but you’d be very wrong! It’s fine if everyone at the table is on the same philosophical page but someone with extreme beliefs can really ruin the meal. The only thing worse is being the only moderate in a room full of zealots (I replaced the word “crazies”) which has happened to me more than once. When confronted with a Religious Relative make sure they hook up with someone of similar taste so they can bond or find someone with completely opposite views and watch the fireworks. (Any social boo-boos you make will then likely be lost in the shuffle.)
-
6) THE PERSON WITH THE SECRET EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS
Yep--so true. And probably the less said about that the better! Family secrets, no matter how many people know them, are best left secret. If they should come out--make sure you aren’t the one telling.
-
5) THE FANTASY FOOTBALL GUY
I’m not a “sports” person (surprise!) so any of this sort of talk tends to make my eyes glaze over. We have a couple of fantasy footballers in my family (they know who they are and most of them don’t read my blog but their mothers’ do) but they don’t often go off into their particular fantasy world. Still, I know gamers who don’t know when to stop talking about their particular hobby and that’s annoying too.
-
4) THE NEW BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND THAT WON'T LAST
We’ve dealt with this a few times in our family dinners and it can be a bit awkward. Tell you what’s the absolute worst thought: thinking you know, I really liked the last one s/he brought. Wonder why they broke up? Saying it’s even worse. Endure them and hope for the best. Enjoy them whiel they're with you: the new boy/girlfriend might make amusing conversation fodder later.
-
3) THE OVERLY POLITICAL RELATIVE
Hmm--I’m sensing a pattern here: fanatics of any sort, be they religious, hobbyists or political are to be discouraged. Sadly, unlike friends you can’t tell family they’re idiots for holding a particular belief. At least you shouldn’t. I did--once--and, well… Let’s not go back there. Like any other fanatic. Avoid them if you can, find them a soul mate or their antithesis then sit back and watch the fun.
-
2) THE SUPER OLD GRANDPARENT
I was right with the Holy Taco guys--at least ‘til they got here. Yes, super-old relative can be difficult or time consuming but, believe me, having them at Thanksgiving Dinner is better than seeing them in a “Board and Care Facility” or not having them around--especially the first holiday they aren‘t there. Trust me on this one. Enjoy them while you can because they won’t be here that much longer and once they’re gone there’s no more chance to make memories.
-
1) THE RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC
Honestly, I’m of two minds about this one. A lot of my earliest holiday memories are marred because of people drinking too much and starting trouble. Sobriety is a good thing. Still, those who wear their sobriety like some badge of honor and insist on judging others because they choose to take a drink just gets my goat--and I hardly ever drink. Appreciate the recovering alcoholic and toast their accomplishment with the drink of your choice.
-
The list is interesting but I think they missed a few candidates for “most annoying people at Thanksgiving Dinner.” Allow me to submit the following additional suggestions. (I think you’ll find them just as annoying if not more than the previous seven.)
-
BERT/BERTHAN BETTER-THAN-YOU
No matter what you accomplish they’ve outdone you. Their house is bigger, car is newer and they have better toys than you do. Their kids are smarter, better looking and more athletically-inclined than yours. Their job is better and their friends are more interesting. The only thing that’s lower than you is their golf score. If their friends of yours you can drop them but if you’re related you’re bound to have to see them once in a while. The solution--next year let THEM host the Thanksgiving Dinner (and when they serve dinner five hours late you can laugh behind your hand.)
-
THE JUDGE
The Judge sets themselves up as judge, jury and executioner no matter what the situation may be--whether their opinion is requested or not. OK, sorry confession time: this is me more often than I’d like to admit. (But then I‘m not the only Judge.) Dealing with the Judge is never easy: all you can do is slog through until you get a chance to judge the Judge!
-
THE ADVISOR
Dear Abby, Dr. Phil, Deepak Chopra and Doctor Laura all rolled into one ball of walking annoyance. Whether you need it or want it they’re their with advice on how you should be living your life. Avoid them if you can and know that their heart is in the right place if you can’t--but refrain from beaning them with a dinner roll. It just makes things worst.
-
THE HYPERACTIVE CHILD
Bane of the child-free, this little "darling" is a non-stop pinball bouncing hither and you and never lighting in one place. The faulty volume control is only enhanced by random hypersonic shrieks capable of shattering crystal and unprepared eardrums. Parents and grandparents of the hyperactive child have had time to prepare the unwary guest can only cringe (since getting to the seat of the problem isn't an opiton here--however much one might wish to paddle the little dear.) Booze and pills (for either the guest or the child) are the preferred solution to this problem.
-
THE FASHIONISTA
Almost every family has one: the stick-thin female who is always clad from head to toe in T.H.E. latest designer duds--and managing to look good no matter how outrageous the style. Worse, she’s likely to tell you in no uncertain terms what’s wrong with your clothes and how to improve your wardrobe. When confronted with the Fashionista all you have to do is blow really hard and the wind will sweep the twig away so you won’t have to deal with them any longer.
-
The list could go on and on: the Athlete, the Name Dropper (I’ve been guilty of this one) the Chronic Complainer, the Hypochondriac, the first-time Grandma... But know this, how ever many people you can slot into one of these categories--YOU are on somebody’s list somewhere. Accept your family faults and all and hope that others return the favor. They’re the only family you’ve got and you can’t trade ’em in--no matter how much you might want to sometimes. In the end it will be better for everybody.
-
Happy Thanksgiving.

"True Blood" Has Real Bite

There are times I really miss my Mind Boggling Fractals program: I don’t have any "blood"-related fractal images (other than one I’ve already used) and I dearly wish I could have created something new. Since that is no longer an option I’m forced to use Bloodrose a second time. I think it’s pretty obvious why I chose that image.
-
Maybe you can blame Anne Rice and her breakout novel Interview With The Vampire (followed by several sequels) or maybe it’s just one of those weird cyclical things: whatever the reason the past few years have seen a whole raft of fiction series chronicling human/vampire interactions. You have sweet romances like Twilight by Stephanie Miller (which I reviewed on November 24), The Nymphos of Rocky Flats and it’s sequels by Mario Acevedo (featuring Vampire P.I. Felix Gomez) to the sexed-up romps of Betsy the Vampire Queen by Mary Janice Davidson. Possibly the most successful series in the genre are the Sookie Stackhouse novels by Arkansas author Charlaine Harris.
-
As I said in the Twilight review, I’m not a big fan of “vampire fiction” (I AM the wrong age and gender after all) but I do love psis (do any of you remember my love letter to Zena Henderson when I first started my blog?) and I was further intrigued to see the books were set in a region of Northwest Louisiana which is home to my Mother’s people. I got a good deal from the Science Fiction Book Club so I bought the first four books and hoped for the best.
-
What I found was a well-written novel with heat and humor populated by interesting (dare I say realistic?) characters and a cool mystery with some sexy elements. In this series vampires have “come out of the coffin” and revealed themselves to the world thanks to the invention of a blood substitute that allows vamps to survive without feeding on humans. In all honesty I was more interested in the world than the relationship between Sookie and “Vampire Bill.” but the first book interested me enough to want to read the rest of the series. I’ve read all the books and, in spite of a few problems, I’ve been interested enough to keep following the series--even to television.
-
I always worry when a book I like makes the transition to the screen: will the vision of the creators come anywhere close to mine? Will the actors do justice to their characters? Will they feel the need to change the thing so much that I can’t recognize the source material? I knew some changes would have to be made (the Sookie Stackhouse novels are written in the first person--hard to do on screen for example) but I had hopes for the show.
-
Executive Producer Alan Ball brought the show to HBO--a company known for taking risks. The company isn’t afraid to spend money to put a good series on the air and it shows with True Blood. Everything in the series “rings true” from the setting to the character accents to all the additional material available on line. (You don’t have to be a fan of the books to get into the series and most fans of the books seem to enjoy the series for its own merits.) True Blood is loaded with profanity, nudity, graphic sex and violence which will turn off some viewers but others won’t mind.
-
Anna Paquin has the right look and accent as Sookie the telepathic waitress: she brings a certain tough vulnerability to her role. Sadly, her telepathic powers seem to fail her at the most inconvenient times (but that happens in any show with telepaths.) Brit Stephen Moyer has the right look for Vampire Bill but his characterization often verges on a bad “Elvis” impersonation (to my mind at least). Sam Trammell (a New Orleans native) does fine as shape-shifter and bar owner Sam Merlotte. Aussie Ryan Kwanten has the thankless job of playing Sookie’s brother Jason. (He’s not the nicest person in the world and he isn’t the brightest bulb on the string and ends up naked or nearly-so in every episode.) Michael Raymond-James is spot-on as Rene. (He obviously spent a lot of time listening to Cajun Dialect For Actors.) Chris Bauer has another thankless role as Detective Andy Bellfleur who can’t solve a crime if the perp is handed to him on a platter. William Sanderson (“I‘m Larry, this is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl“) plays Sherriff Bud Dearborn (who gets a more sympathetic depiction on screen than he did in the books.)
-
The character that gets the biggest page to screen makeover is Tara Thornton (played by Rutina Wesley), She goes from a white shop owner to a totally ghetto black bartender loaded down with issues. I found this change from book-to-screen the most startling but it works in this context. Her story arc is one of the most interesting through the season (and it ain’t nearly over yet.)
-
For me, the biggest disappointment in the show was the casting of Alexander Skarsgård as Viking vampire Eric Northman. He has the height and coloration but lacks the charisma and projects about as much menace as a salmon smorgasbord. Of course, the actor wasn’t given that much to do in the first season: Eric plays a larger part in the second book so I guess I’ll have to wait to see how well he does in the second season (but I’m not holding out a lot of hope. Dutch actor Rutger Hauer could have played the part quite well--but he's gotten too old now.
-
I also find I really miss "Bubba" the vampire but I know why the Producers chose not to include him in the series. (Read the books or e-Mail me privately if you want to know why.)
-
True Blood is decidedly adult so those with “delicate” sensibilities should probably avoid the show. Still, it’s a good show for those with an eye for quality television with an edge and of course horror and vampire fans will eat it up.

Sometimes I Think It Would Be Fun To Have Problems Like This.PART DEUX

I don’t have that many fractals dealing with diamonds or jewels so for this update I chose CrossDiamond because the post involves diamonds and everyone involved are no doubt cross (at the very least). That being said, on with the corrections!
-
I wasn’t able to find any information on the Saks Fifth Avenue Jewelry Store case (not that I tried all that hard) but my sister Andrea Keskey in Oceanside found the story and sent me a link. Check it out here if you’re interested in seeing the original story: http://blog.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/2008/11/should_saks_fifth_avenue_sue_o.html . I made some mistakes in most post of November 22 so, in the interest of “journalistic integrity” I humbly submit these corrections for your listening and dancing pleasure.
-
The incident happened in a downtown Portland Oregon Saks Fifth Avenue store NOT Orange County as I had reported. The total was $76,000 not 78.000. The customer’s name is Emily Pickering and the Saks General Manager who made the calls seeking to correct the mistake is Bill Halleran. (The two Sales Clerks who made the mistake were not named in the article.)
-
Laura Gunderson, a Reporter for The Oregonian solicited comments from several people that I found interesting (so I’ll include them here.
-
Portland Lawyer Perry Heitman believes (as I do) the “fault” lies with Saks Fifth Avenue. The store is responsible for setting the prices and making sure they are correct.
-
Boutique owner Paul Schneider (of art and jewelry boutique Twist) agrees. (Quoting from the article) “When a customer is quoted a price, pays and the retailer accepts the payment, a binding agreement has been reached. Schneider and other retailers questioned whether it's worth the cost to sue a customer, considering a company's public relations and the fact that retailers earn a mark-up on jewelry and have already factored in a certain amount of losses to their budget each year. Saks should be more concerned that their sales clerks aren't better trained on the value and pricing of the pieces they're selling” To which I say--testify brother! (If/when I ever get back to Portland I hope I‘ll be able to pay a visit to the store: Mr. Schneider sounds like a reasonable and intelligent businessman.)
-
Most consumers and those commenting on the case agreed that, legal or not, the customer was ethically obligated to return or pay for the brooch (which also agreed with my position). Still, I have to wonder how they’d react if a windfall of this magnitude fell into their laps (but that’s just the cynic in me).
-
So, there you have the corrected/updated version of the story.

"Twilight" Time Not For Everyone

It’s a beautiful thing when a fractal image and a post mesh so perfectly. Today is one of those cases because this review is going to cause a huge storm with Twilight fans. (If you haven’t guessed the image is called Twilight Storm).
-
As I grow older it seems I get farther and farther away from what’s “hip” and “happening”. I had no idea that Twilight even existed much less was a literary phenomenon on par with the “Harry Potter” novels until last Labor Day Weekend when my sister-in-law Wendy Pyle clued me in. Of course, by then the author was on book Number Four (with many more to come I‘m sure) so I’m not about to get on the bandwagon at this late date.
The movie made from the first book debuted on November 21 (and made seven million dollars at the midnight show alone). Robyn and I saw it in a ¾ full theater Sunday afternoon and we helped the movie rake in over 78 million dollars.
-
Here’s my review…
-
You don’t have to read the book to know what’s happening in Twilight. In fact, a viewer who is remotely aware can pretty much figure out what will happen from the first snippet of dialog so I won’t bore you with much of a plot summary. In short, new outsider (girl) meets bad boy (vampire) falls, in love and gets in trouble with badder boys (also vampires). It stars a bunch of actors I’d never heard of (with the exception of Peter Facinelli--mainly because he’s married to Jenny Garth (who was on Dancing With The Stars a few seasons ago).
-
I could have gotten past a familiar (dare I say derivative?) plot if I’d liked the characters better. Lead actress Kristen Stewart plays Bella as just this side of clinically depressed. Pretty boy Robert Pattinson (who‘s biggest role was Cedric Diggory in the fourth “Harry Potter“ movie) is all over the emotional map as Edward Cullen a “vegetarian” vampire. (He also wears more makeup than the female lead and just about everyone in the cast) At least the “normal” kids as Bella’s high school are portrayed in a realistic manner (although I find myself wondering why everyone was so interested in a girl who hardly seems interested in them). The rest of Edward’s “family” are barely drawn and the bad guys get even less back-story. (Here’s where reading the book probably would have helped me.) The movie is shot through a blue filter and a lot of time the action moves with glacial slowness and everyoe seems to be generally "down". The few action sequences sprinkled through the movie don’t have much better special effects than you’d find on a good television show.
-
Still, fairness requires me to be completely honest. Obviously, I’m not the desired demographic for Twilight so it would have been a real surprise if I’d enjoyed it. Robyn liked the movie better than I did (but she had some problems with
Twilight as well.) Still, there were a lot of black-clad teen and tween girls (and Moms of said girls) who all seemed to really enjoy the movie. (There was even a round of applause in the theater while the credits rolled) Whether you like it or not Twilight has become part of the cultural landscape so you’d better be prepared for more movies and other books/shows/movies with a similar theme. (Tomorrow I‘ll be reviewing Season One of True Blood which is an example of what I was just talking about.)
-
FINAL GRADE (for Fans) A
-
FINAL GRADE (for non-Fans) C+

Sometimes I Think It Would Be Fun To Have Problems Like This..

An Explosion Of Jewels is the featured fractal of today’s post: read on and you’ll see why it is so singularly appropriate…
-
I heard something in passing on the KTLA Morning News yesterday (November 21) that I found interesting enough to ponder and write about. I got only the most basic facts and wasn’t able to find any more info on line but the story goes something like this: an Orange County woman went to Saks Fifth Avenue and purchased a diamond brooch and earrings for $28,000. The two clerks on duty sold her the items as a set. She paid for everything and went away happy. Some time later though, the store manager called her and told her the two items were not a set (and were thus valued at $78,000). He told the woman she would have to return the items or she could buy them at a discount. The woman refused both solutions so now she is being sued by the store.
-
Maybe I’m wrong here but I think this one should be a no-brainer for everyone involved. (Of course, I may not have all the facts to I can’t be absolutely certain--and God knows I’m no lawyer.) Assuming the customer bought the items in good faith then it’s not her fault if the clerks made a mistake. Furthermore I’m pretty sure that if the Sak’s’ jewelry department had sold a $28,000 item for $78,000 they wouldn’t be bending over backward to refund the overage. I’m pretty sure the store has a HUGE markup of jewelry (like most luxury goods) so they’re still making a profit at the severely discounted rate.
-
Returning the jewelry or paying the discounted price would certainly be the ethical thing to do but I don’t see where the store would have any legal right to sue the customer. Saks Fifth Avenue needs to buck up and take it in the shorts (like every other business who makes a mistake) and fire the clerks or train their employees better. I’m pretty sure the store is going to lose this case: not only will they lose their profit, they’ll end up paying the court costs and losing a good customer. Not to mention the bad publicity. I don’t see how the “Legal Eagles” at Saks think this is a good idea. (Maybe they thought the customer would cave at the threat of a suit but they were wrong.)
-
I’d like to think that I’d be ethical enough to return or pay up if I was confronted by a situation like this(but, in all honesty, I probably wouldn’t: I’d probably fight back just like the customer. I’m cheap and I have larceny in my heart--even if I‘d never seek to cheat someone.) Whatever happens, this isn’t going to be a good thing for anyone involved--but it would sure be fun to have problems like this for--for a while at least.
-
Think about it.

Adventures In Debt Collection (That I Don't Owe)

Today’s post features a fractal I call Going Nova. I chose it because that’s what I felt like doing: read on and you’ll see why…
-
What’s more annoying than having to deal with debt collectors who constantly harass you over the phone? Having to deal with said debt collectors when you don’t owe them any money! Read on and I’ll tell you my tale of woe…
-
The trouble started a couple of months ago: it was a random weekday much like any other when the phone rang and a recorded message began to play. We had a rather long, chatty message on our answering machine at the time--so the recorded message played right over that--and failed to record anything. The happened several more times and I eventually started trying to get to the phone to pick up enough of the message to find out what was going on. All I got was “this is an important matter. Please call 800-###-#### as soon as possible.” So--when they called back later in the day I actually managed to get to the phone before they hung up.
-
The nice mechanical voice asked me to input the last four digits of my Social Security Number: to this day I’m not sure why I did but I did. (I’d have felt a lot less sanguine about input ALL NINE digits.) Of course my digits didn’t match their records so I had to “wait for an agent.” I did--and was subjected to fifteen minutes of annoyingly chirpy “hold” music--only to be told that nobody was available to take my call and please call back later. I did. THIRTY SECONDS LATER. That’s when I found out I was dealing with the Bank America Mortgage Department. I kept hitting “zeroes” and after a while the mechanical gate guardian decided to connect me with someone living and breathing.
-
I spoke to a nice lady in the Midwest named Chelsea. She told me that nobody was able to assist me but she’d be happy to take my number and someone would get back to me in 24-48 hours. “But--I don’t have a loan with you?” I told her. “At least I don’t think so..” She asked me for my street address--which I gave--and she told me that didn’t match anything in their records. Chelsea suggested that someone in my household might have a delinquent account with a different part of the company. (She said it wasn’t likely but I should check.)
-
As it happens, Robyn does have an account with a related institute but she is up to date. So when I got yet another call from them last week I was confident that they had the wrong number. Still, I missed part of the message that gave me an option to opt out or complain to someone. So--I pounded random numbers and waited until a live person picked up.
-
Oddly enough, it was “Chelsea” again--with the same song and dance about there being nobody to help me but give her my number and…” At this point I told the dear lady “I’m 100% certain nobody in this household has business with you! How do I stop these calls?” Chelsea was clearly flummoxed by this question but she dutifully put me on hold while she tried to find someone to help me out. It took her a while (it seemed like forever) but she eventually came back on the line and said I should simply follow the prompts the next time they called. (Why she or someone couldn’t simply take me off the list was something I couldn’t find out.)
-
Earlier today BofA called back and I dutifully followed the prompts: it gave me a number of choices which ended with something like “if this is not you press Four!” Needless to say I pressed four…
-
This time I didn’t have to wait more than a few seconds to be connected to a nice man named Rich. Our conversation went something like this..
-
HE: “Thank you for calling Bank of America Mortage Lending--how may I help you?”
-
ME: “I didn’t call you--you called me and I’m frankly annoyed!”
-
HE: “And why is that?” Rich sounded frankly skeptical. I told him my name and that I didn’t have an account with BofA. He took a few pieces of information and was finally able to confirm that indeed I did NOT have an account. Rich apologized profusely and promised to take my number off their system. Hopefully this will put an end to my adventures in debt collection but I have no guarantee.
-
What really bothers me about the whole thing is the complete impersonality of the process: dealing with a machine is difficult enough (if the machine waits until the *BEEP* to start talking) but being called out of the blue and then forced to WAIT while they decide whether or not they can spare a live person to speak with you seems frankly rude. Honestly, I get that the loan companies not only have a RIGHT but a NEED to collect their debt: still, I think there needs to be a way to opt out of these calls when the debt isn’t yours that doesn’t involved multiple phone calls and hours of waiting listening to elevator music.
-
Ah well--it could have been worse. I could have had my identity stolen and been in real trouble. I should probably count my blessings that it wasn't any worse…