Review: Star Trek

It's been awhile since I've posted a review, so a quick refresher on my rating system: on a scale from one to five, inversely related to how much knitting I got done during the movie. Five balls means I got only a couple of stitches done or it never occurred to me to pull out the project. One ball means I got a lot of knitting done. In this case, it was definitely the latter - what knitting?

The new Star Trek... what can I say? Yes, I'm a geek. I like science fiction. I've even enjoyed some Star Trek - shows, movies, homages. Firefly kind of ruined Trek for me - I started thinking "what if these planets didn't want to be in the Federation?" (You'd have to have seen Firefly to understand where that logic was coming from.)

But this movie... dayum. I've seen it twice, and John has seen it three times (two weeks before the release, a friend of his had advanced release tickets). Seriously, hands-down, a great flick. I'm in awe of Karl Urban, who played Leonard "Bones" McCoy, who gave the distinct impression that he was channeling DeForest Kelley. Apparently, this guy can do anything he sets his mind to.

With an entirely new cast playing characters many of us grew up with, there is a danger that they'd be caricatures or impressions of the original cast. It's difficult to put into words, but let me just say that I cringed a little when I thought of the possibilities (bad Saturday Night Live sketches, etc.). Then I saw the movie. Even though Urban's Bones was eerily reminiscent of Kelley's, it wasn't an impression. The characters were enough like the originals to be recognizable, but they were fresh and exciting at the same time.

You don't have to be a Trekkie or sci fi fan to enjoy this movie. It helps, of course, but overall, it's an enjoyable event.

Other movies
We've only seen a couple other movies (in theaters) in the last few months: Monsters v. Aliens and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I enjoyed them both, but I don't have a lot to say by way of review.

Read More......

The Duchess and the Knitting PIs

Last night, Jdub and I went to see The Duchess. I enjoyed this one far more that The Other Boleyn Girl, in part, I suspect, because I could see the glaring historical inaccuracies in the latter, and knew almost nothing about Cavendish. (Ignorance is bliss?) I'm sure this is only loosely based on her life, but I was able to relax and enjoy the spectacle. I do have to admit that I wondered, during more than one scene, how so many men lived as long as they did. Because, seriously? I would have killed the Duke in his sleep, thank you very much. (Proving that Ralph Fiennes does an excellent job at playing the bastard/villain.) The beating of wives is discussed and there is a violent scene, so I would say not it's for youngsters, no matter how cool Knightley's wardrobe is.

My score: 4 out of 5. Worth the price, good experience, but not jumping-up-and-down good.

The Knitting Detectives and the Addi Turbos v. Premium Mystery
Some seven months ago, on Ravelry, a member asked an intriguing question: what's the difference between Addi Turbo (pricey circular needles, sold in North America) and Addi Premiums (reasonably-priced circular needles sold everywhere else)? An enlightening discussion resulted, with a rep the NA distributor chiming in to state that the Turbos, which cost 2-3x the retail price of the Premiums, are held to a higher manufacturing standard and are covered by a lifetime warranty. A Hong Kong-based distributor reported that the Premium needles she sold were identical to the Turbos, but with different packaging.

Well, this got people on every continent interested. Folks in Europe & elsewhere wanted to know why Addi would sell inferior needles to them. Folks in the US and Canada wanted to know why they were paying up to three times as much money for a warranty that shouldn't be needed if the needles were such high quality. (Not to mention that you had to have your original packaging and store receipt to take advantage of said warranty. Raise your hand if you have all your packages and receipts.) Folks who had both kinds in their possession reported that the packaging was slightly different, but they could tell no difference between the needles themselves. Oh, a mystery was afoot! Developments in the last few days inspired a few determined and intrepid investigators - from all over the globe - to direct some questions to the source.

One PI contacted Skacel, the NA distributor and was told (her words): "The Turbos and Premiums are made by the same company, Addi. The Turbos are made by Addi to Skacel’s specifications. The Premiums are also made by Addi, but for the European market. They are cheaper, as they are made to lesser standards."

More than one PI contacted Addi, the manufacturer, and were told (quote from emails): "There is no difference between Addi Premium and Addi Turbo needles it is only the label. In USA we sell under the name Addi Turbo and in Europe we sell them under the name Addi Premium. The quality is exact the same."

Ladies, Emerson Cod (the original knitting detective) would be proud.

Skacel has been silent since these communications have been shared. The addi rep tried to do some back-peddling, explaining that Skacel's Addi Turbos cost more because standard of living in the US is higher and they have advertising expenses, etc. The effort is appreciated, but it doesn't wash. In Iceland, where the cost of living is just about the highest in the world (gas is roughly $9.50 a gallon, and it's ~$10 for a McDonald's hamburger meal) because of the high cost of getting the materials to them, a pair of Addi Premiums is under $10.

Many folks on the thread recommend this eBay seller. I haven't ordered anything, because I'm quite happy with my Knitpicks needles (also a fraction of the price of Turbos). When buying online, make sure an out-of-the-country seller has the needles listed as Addi Premiums.

I could have sworn I mentioned this, but I can't find an entry. If it happens to be on my old blog, sorry for the repeat, but there is new news as well.

Read More......

Olden Times

This is where the "rambling" part of the blog title comes in.

Nothing like ripping apart an old tv show, but I'm in the mood. I have a fondness for some of the PBS "House" "reality" shows and have three of them: 1900 House, Colonial House and Frontier House. They're frelling expensive, so I make sure friends, like Heather and Anita, who are also into this kind of thing get a chance to borrow them.

The deal with these shows is that they are promoted as historical/educational, but they are not too different from The Real World, just with different costumes and a limited locale.

I'm watching Colonial House for the second time since I received the DVDs, and have some observations to make. Some of these issues could be due to the editing/direction, but I'll name 'em anyway:

• Of course, the knitted wool hats and stockings rule. (I knit a Monmouth cap after I caught a couple episodes during the broadcast times, and want to do another, with more authentic yarn.) Sad to see no one knitting at all, and doing little in the way of needlework. Proof that these are more about the drama than the history, that they didn't have time - in 8 episodes - to show much beyond fighting and whining. (There were 2 instances that I'm aware of: 1 participant darning a sock, and a few of the ladies doing needlework once Heinz officially became governor.)
• Speaking of the Heinzes... I really wanted to like them. Especially the wife. But I couldn't. I realize that some of what we see was due to careful editing, but they can't fake the snark and elitism. I can understand why many of the participants didn't like the new CEO-type they sent in, but I thought he was pretty cool.
  
• From the voice overs, they make it clear that this cast of participants/characters was similar to real colonists in that many of the originals starved because they didn't know how to hunt or fish. But I doubt that they'd stand around and scoff after being shown where free and easy food was. (The clam flats. I only like my clams deep-fried, but I'd learn to love steamers if there was only 1 ration of meat a week!)
• I started writing this while I was halfway through the series, so "I guess there was a garden, because they had a radish once. But wouldn't this be crucial?" isn't 100% accurate. They actually show a garden in a later episode and show one of the servants cleaning up. Still, never showed anyone harvesting or eating from it (or planting it) except for that radish.
• Another early note: "If I could have been involved in the planning, I would have allowed people to do some research and make notes that they could take with them." Later: Turns out they had books, but I got the impression from something governor Wyers said that they never opened them. Helpful, that.
• The original colonists might not have known what plants were edible, etc., but some of them must have had a trade to bring with them. No one knew how to brew beer, make wine or cider. Hunt or trap. Or, if they did, it was never shown.
  
• Like how they didn't introduce all of the second group of colonists? One of the guys (Craig) finally - in the second-to-last episode - had his name under his face (another, Jeff, was identified a couple of episodes previous). Neither he nor Jeff were actually introduced.
• The best part for me: seeing how messed up a combined church and state was, and seeing people realize it.
  

Quickies on the other two series I have (the only ones I've seen):

Frontier House: LOVED seeing the newlyweds think outside the box for ways to earn money (cheese) - and the wife was actually shown knitting! LOVED the fact that the community decided on a private school because - if it were a real situation - the newlyweds' future (mixed-race) children wouldn't be allowed to attend a public school. The kids were the real stars. It was sad to watch a marriage fall apart, the exact opposite one I would have bet on during the first episode.

Even if the guy was kind of a whiny baby (I'm starving. No, you're dehydrated. That will be 50% of your savings, please), the one that picked a still as his one special item was pretty darn clever. I think his family was perceived as cheating more than once, but they showed some real ingenuity. If they hadn't gone into that one house to watch TV, I think they would have been fine trading with the family.

The 1900 House: Shortest, I think, but still one of the best. The first episode showed how they got the house retro'd to 1900 standards, then the family they picked. Because that time had regular mail delivery, she had access to resources and was able to research activities and food to keep the kids happy. I was right there with her and the one daughter when they couldn't go swimming (in their fabulous bathing costumes) because they were on the rag and tampons hadn't been invented. Finding out that take-out existed, in the form of fish 'n chips, is probably what got her son through it.

Not so good: sneaking to a drugstore to buy shampoo. Tsk tsk. It would be SO hard to be right in the middle of all the hustle & bustle of a big city and have to pretend it doesn't exist. Knowing that there's a bottle of Suave with your name on it, just around the corner.

Read More......

Review: The Dark Knight

I'm giving this 5 balls of yarn, even though I got some knitting done and The Batman's voice drove me crazy. This is a superbly acted and beautifully shot movie. It's dark, and when people say that, they aren't kidding!

Forget the fact that they are marketing toys to small children: parents, this is not for 8-year-olds! Most of the violence is cartoony enough, but there is one part where a villain holds a gun to a child's head. There's more info. here. It's rated PG-13, and I wouldn't take a child much younger than that (maybe a mature 11 or 12). Best bet: preview it yourself first.

Read More......

Review: Hellboy II

Ah. Bliss. Sweet, sweet movie. Not perfect, but quite good. I love a movie that makes me laugh out loud AND has good fights and interesting characters. 5 yarn balls means I got next to no knitting done (about 20 stitches total).



And, hey Julie: If you're reading this, HI!!

I tracked down an old friend from college. I wasn't 100% sure, but I mailed off two letters earlier in the week, and got an email today. I think we spent an hour on the phone catching up before Anita arrived for the movie. We almost got expelled from college together, and were suspected and accused of all kinds of stuff. (I still get mail from that crap-hole college -- finally wrote "deceased" on an envelope and dropped it in the mail.)

Read More......

Now that's better (& Get Smart review)

Earlier this week, I posted about the discomfort I was experiencing with the ear buds that came with my iPod. Stacie sent me to a site that sold a wide variety. Rather than order online, I took note of the styles and finally got out to an electronics store today and found these. There are 3 sizes of covers, and the smallest one fits perfectly. (And look at the little skulls on the ends.) Huzzah!

Get Smart
I loved the Get Smart TV show when I was a kid. When I heard that this movie was coming out, I had really mixed feelings about it. Whenever things from my childhood get resurrected for now, they don't generally go so well. I've liked some of Steve Carell's work, so I was torn.

When John brought up going to the movies last night, he wanted to go see Wall-e. I'm not in the mood to see that, so I brought up Get Smart as an alternative (still not sure I wanted to see it). Then, last night, I caught another commercial for the movie, and this time they showed Hymie. Well. I adore Patrick Warburton, AND I loved Hymie from the show*. That settled it. We went to see the movie today.

My new rating guide is based on how much knitting I got done: the more yarn balls there are, the less knitting I accomplished. (5 would mean I forgot to knit.) I give Get Smart a 4. It was entertaining and fun, and did not -- most importantly -- spoof the original show.

*When we got our little dog many, many years ago, my dad suggested that we name him after Hymie, the robot on Get Smart. This is Hymie:

Read More......

Movies: The Incredible Hulk

While this is technically a sequel to another movie, it's not necessary for you to have seen the first one to enjoy this; in fact, it's probably better if you didn't see the first one (or hated it). This one is actually pretty close to the Hulk from the comics. The character is actually named Bruce (the character on the TV show was "David" Banner) and he actually became the Hulk via gamma radiation poisoning (the first movie in the series had him inheriting it).

The first movie was so far off the mark that they retconned it. Retcon = retroactive continuity, and (short version) is something they do when they pretend a previous story didn't exist. In this case, the events that are the new history for the movie are relayed in the opening credit sequence. So, if you hated the first Hulk, or didn't see it, you're good to go with this one. (No post-credit sequence, unlike Iron Man, so don't feel like you have to sit through all the credits.)

As for my response to the film: Pretty darn good, actually. (You can read some surprise in that phrasing.) I didn't follow Hulk in the comics -- all I knew was the TV version, and I don't even remember that too well. I see some of these (comic-based) movies because I want to, some because John does. This was one of the latter, but I enjoyed it. (Hellboy II will be one we both want to see -- me probably more than him!) Edward Norton makes for an excellent Bruce Banner, and Liv Tyler a good Betty Ross, especially when she's exhibiting Betty's temper.

Since Marvel has gotten production control of their own stories now (starting with Iron Man), you can expect to see more good movies in this genre, and probably more cross-overs (you did sit through to the post-credit sequence in Iron Man, right?), leading up to an Avengers movie.

I wish I could work out a fun & quirky rating system, but it's kind of reverse: a zero would mean I got no knitting done, which would mean the movie was so engrossing that I forgot to knit (Prince Caspain). A one or two would be some knitting, a four would be plenty of knitting. But that's not how movie ratings work, so I haven't figured one out yet. A thought: How about balls of yarn? The more balls left mean the least knitting?

Read More......