"9" - upcoming animated movie

In seeing movies the past couple of weeks, I've seen the trailer for the film "9", which is being released, appropriately enough, on September 9 (9-9-09). Someone on a discussion board mentioned that the movie is based on a short film. There's no direct link to the short itself, but if you go to Shane Acker's website, click on "FILMS", and then click on the bottom left box for "9 the short".

The short was not what I expected at all. It really looks just like a teaser trailer for a film - even shorter than the actual trailer for the feature film itself which gives more information. As a short on its own, it seems disjointed, incomplete. That being said, I'm very surprised that it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Short Film in 2005. I guess they really just liked the style.

Here's the description of the short from the site:

A mechanical beast attacks two rag doll creatures as they scavenge the ruins of their world. After witnessing the death of his Mentor "5" by the hands of the malevolent construct, the rag doll "9" must confront the terror. Only through cunning and the use of his primitive technology can 9 hope to destroy the creature and steal the talisman of trapped souls it carries as a trophy.

But I do like the animation style from the trailer, which really grabbed my attention, and the little bit of plot given in the trailer sounds intriguing.




From Shane Acker's website, there's a link to the official site for the movie, which has the trailer running on the main page, but the site itself doesn't seem to have anything else on it at the moment.

Here's a link to another site with the trailer of the movie.


The film stars the voices of Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Crispin Glover, Martin Landau and Christopher Plummer. I'm a huge fan of Elijah, so I'm looking forward to hearing his voicework on this. The rest of the listed cast are definitely no slouches either. And Tim Burton is one of the producers of this film.

I absolutely *love* the music in the trailer, but I don't know if that's representative of what will be in the film. I sure hope so.

We won't be seeing the film on opening day as we already have plans for that day, but I expect we'll be seeing the film sometime within its first couple days of release.

"Taken" - spoiler movie review (and real-life events)

Before I saw the trailer, I saw the one-sheet for "Taken".





Hmmm, intriguing words. And I like Liam Neeson. And then I saw the trailer, and I was definitely in.

Overall, I liked the film, though it's fairly light in plot. Long-absent dad (Neeson) tries to establish a relationship with his teenage daughter (Maggie Grace), which is looked upon with disfavor by his ex-wife (Famke Janssen) and with disinterest by her new husband (Xander Berkeley). Because of his government-affiliated work, he's extra paranoid but is eventually persuaded to let his daughter go abroad with a friend. Should have listened to dad, because both girls are promptly kidnapped by a gang who traffic in girls. But not before the daughter is able to tell dear old dad exactly what's going on. Which is what prompts the words on the one-sheet, words that dad tells his daughter's kidnapper. The rest of the movie basically consists of dad looking for his daughter, following leads, and is a fairly typical action movie, except that Liam Neeson is in it. Yeah, he was in "The Phantom Menace" and "Batman Begins", but he wasn't really an action hero sort of guy before.

As you'd expect, the action sequences are fairly spectacular, though there is such an abundance of them that I kind of hit overlord and started watching them on autopilot almost.

In the end, dad of course finds his daughter.

Maggie Grace is fine in the film, though she's really not in it much. She's in the opening sequences, but once she's kidnapped, we see very little of her. They've certainly dressed her down to make her look much younger.


Dad brings daughter a birthday present while mom looks on disapprovingly.


But I did think she did a really terrific job in the apartment, when she realizes that men are taking her friend and they're looking for her next. The scene with her on the phone under the bed was pretty spectacular.





Famke Janssen is ok in the movie - she really doesn't have that much to do. She gets to be snotty as the ex-wife who's done much better for herself and then is devastated to realize the danger she has allowed her daughter to get into. Now, if Phoenix was there instead, those guys who messed with her daughter would have been toast - probably literally.

Xander Berkeley really has very little to do as the new husband, but I still liked seeing him. I miss him in "24".

But of course, the star of the movie was Liam Neeson. He does really well as an action hero guy, and his quiet tones make him all the more menacing. He was fun to watch.


We saw this film several weeks ago, and I enjoyed it, but I didn't really think it was a high-profile film, even with Liam Neeson as the star. But one thing I've marvelled at is how well the film has continued to do. The movie has been out for seven weeks, and in that time, the film has stayed in the top 5 every weekend. To date, the film has grossed about $128,000,000. I'm really just amazed at the staying power of this film, and I really can't begin to explain it.

And had I posted this review shortly after I'd seen the film, or even a week or two ago, that would have been the end of this blog post, how well the film is doing. But today, the success of the film doesn't mean much. I expect Liam Neeson would give back all that success and everything he has to change the tragic events of the past week. Last week, he was a very popular and successful movie star, working on a new film. This week, none of that matters - he's just a husband who has lost his wife, and a father to two teenage boys who have lost their mother. Even the title of this film takes on a painful tinge now, much too close to reality.

My thoughts and prayers and condolences go out to Liam Neeson, his two boys, and the rest of their family.

Why take responsibility when I can blame someone else?

A friend alerted me to a blog post on the L.A. Times website called "Disneyland passholders: Watch out for birthday blackout dates". The link pops up the blog post now, but I'm not sure if sometime in the future, it will require that you register first.

The blog post is so stupid that I don't even know where to begin. "You better look out for those blackout dates!" Ummm, yeah, if you have any level of AP other than premium, you probably pay fairly careful attention to when your blackout dates are. The entire blog post is written from the implication that only one level of AP is offered. Some people may not know that there are different levels of AP that allow different kinds of access.

Obviously, for the average Disneyland annual passholder who visits the park on regular basis, the free-on-your-birthday deal isn't much of perk.

So "average" is supposed to equate to "premium annual passholder"? Because not all AP holders can visit year-round. And for those who don't have access every day of the year, access on your birthday if you can't get in otherwise is just as good as for anyone else who doesn't have an AP.

So the Anaheim theme park offers a free $69 gift card (the standard price of admission) to their most loyal customers.

That would be true - but only if you equate "most loyal customers" to "premium annual passholders".

"So, just because my birthday falls on a blackout day, I don't get the gift card?" said Nancy, on the verge of tears. "That's unfair."

So is this for dramatic effect? Because I have to say that I'd be very surprised if a woman could be reduced to the verge of tears because she isn't getting a gift card BECAUSE SHE ISN'T ELIGIBLE. "Unfair". Really? What does fair or unfair have to do with it? She and her blogger husband didn't bother to read all the terms and conditions of the offer. They obviously must have seen more than just the "free on your birthday" commercials, because those commercials say nothing about what happens if you already have admission on that day. So someone must have either been told something by someone else, or someone did a cursory look at Disneyland's website, but they decided to only pay attention to the "I get free money on my birthday!" aspect rather than actually paying attention to the terms of the promotion itself.

The offer is getting into Disneyland free for your birthday. As a non-premium AP holder, she did not already have admission into the park on her birthday. So, that's what was being offered to her - admission on her birthday, same as anyone else. For a premium annual passholder (or other qualifying admission media holder), yeah, free admission on your birthday is literally worthless because it's not giving you anything you don't already have - which is why they have the alternate gifts, one of which is the gift card.

So if someone says "So, just because my birthday falls on a day when I don't have admission into the park, I don’t get the gift card? That's unfair", would that fly too? Should Disney then fork over $69 in that case as well? Because that statement applies exactly to the situation of the writer's wife. If random person shows up at the resort with no admission media, should they be allowed to demand a $69 gift card just because it's their birthday? That person wouldn't be doing anything different than what was depicted in the blog post.

Or maybe you have to prove that you're a loyal Disney customer. OK, how about someone who has the full WDW AP - that should be enough credential to be deemed a loyal customer, right? If they show up at Disneyland and demand $69 for their birthday, should they get it? No. Because they don't qualify under the terms of the promotion.

with Nancy’s birthday on the verge of being ruined

I put the blame for that solely on the blogger and/or the wife, whoever it was that didn't bother to actually learn the rules of the promotion.

Disneyland officials, contacted for a response, offered apologies but stuck by the company policy: "Our policy for Annual Passholders regarding Free On Your Birthday and blackout dates is clearly stated in Annual Passholder publications and on our website. It is unfortunate that the guest was not aware of the policy and we apologize that she was disappointed."

And yes, the rules are fully on the site. The blogger publishes this response, but then takes ZERO responsibility for the fact that neither he nor his wife knew the actual terms of the promotion. He could have ended with, "Well, our day didn't go as we had planned, so I thought I'd warn other people to make sure to pay attention to their blackout days. If we'd done the same, we wouldn't have encountered the problem we did." That would have at least been taking some responsibility for what happened. But, oh no, can't possibly do that. It's ALL Disney's fault!

And THEN, the blogger has the *nerve* to link to the birthday thread on MousePad, the discussion section of a Disney-related website, saying this similiar situation has happened to a lot of other people. OK, I'm am active member on that board, and I've been reading that thread from the beginning, and maybe I'm just forgetting, but I don't recall ANYONE saying they went on their birthday, which was a blackout day, and they didn't get a gift card and had their day totally ruined. Furthermore, if the blogger knew enough to link to the thread, he could have known enough to actually READ the thread, where we've been talking FOR MONTHS about blackout days and how you can get what gift for your birthday under what circumstances.

So, how did the blogger know about the existence of that particular birthday thread? Because he is registered on the discussion board website, though he has only bothered to post five things, all of which were simply to pimp articles that he'd written for the L.A. Times website. If he'd actually have bothered to be a part of the community, or at the VERY LEAST, bothered to mine the wealth of information that is put forth on the discussion boards every.single.day, he wouldn't have gone to Disneyland completely uninformed.

Oh, and then look, at the end of the blog post, he does say blackout days vary depending on the kind of AP you have. Duh.

However, I will say that I'm laughing hysterically at the comments posted in response to that blog. Most people seem to be saying the same thing I'm saying - it's your own fault for not paying attention.


Here's one person's comment which I heartily agree with:

And if you are the theme park reporter and you don't understand the "free on your birthday" promotion, you are not doing your job.

And then, lo and behold, Mr. Blogger aka Brady MacDonald, actually posted some comments himself in response to the comments others had posted.

Here's an interesting comment from Mr. Blogger:

I like the $69 consolation prize better than getting into the park for free. IMO, Disneyland is being surprisingly generous, whether they let me into the park for free, give me $29 gift card or a $69 gift card. Yet, I still feel Nancy was gypped. And I am acting childish and entitled. I'm not proud of it. But it's true.

It's not a "pick and choose which one you want out of everything we're offering" promotion. If you're eligible for the free admission, you get that. If you don't need that, you can have something else. Heck, the way he says it, any random person should be able to just go to the park on their birthday and demand $69 since that would be much better than just being able to get in for free. And he admits that it's a good promotion, no matter what, and yet, somehow, his wife was still wronged. Give me a foxtrotting break.

Someone mentioned that if they had premium APs, his wife would have gotten her gift card no problem, to which he commented:

We specifically purchase the Deluxe passes in order to avoid the park on the busiest blackout days. We went to the park on Nancy's birthday only to pick up the gift card. I never checked the blackout dates because we had no plans to go into the park. That was my mistake.

So, you're all set to go get the perq - of something you don't want to purchase. He went as far as to pay attention that if you have an AP, an alternate birthday gift could be available, but he didn't go the extra step to read ALL OF THE RULES? I'm wondering where they parked. Because with deluxe passes on a blackout day, they would have had to pay for parking in the regular Disneyland parking structure. That would have been the first clue about it being a blackout day. If they parked in the Downtown Disney parking lot, then the issue of an AP wouldn't have come up.

Quite a number of people on the blog post comment section as well as discussion boards have pointed out the idiocy of his wife being close to tears because Disney wouldn't give her $69. His response:

I hate to see my wife cry. Especially on her birthday.

Awww, nice play for sympathy. But as far as I'm concerned, he should feel like a heel for being the one responsible for making his wife cry on her birthday, since it was his own stupidity that led to her being so terribly disappointed and traumatized at not getting $69 from Disney.

But I do like his admission that he's acting childish and entitled. However, it would have been nice if he'd admitted how much at fault he (and possibly his wife) were in the blog post proper, rather than just somewhere buried in the comments. I'm thinking he wasn't expecting the backlash he got, that he figured everyone would jump on his "woe is me, Disney is evil and mean" bandwagon. Bet he's surprised that there are so many people who saw right through him.




So I posted most of the above to the two Disney-related discussion boards that I participate on. Some of the above is only on this blog because they could potentially violate the rules set up on those boards. But here, I set the rules, and I can say what I want. And then, someone who also participates on both boards (who I shall refer to as Mr. Cooper) came to Mr. Blogger's defense by pointing out this and that wrong with Disney, most of which had nothing to do with the point of Mr. Blogger's post anyway. But hey, as usual, let's deflect to try to bash Disney! As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Cooper is a troll, and I've thought that for a long time. He's just better at it than most amateur trolls. He's like that when it comes to Disney, and he's like that when it comes to particular political issues. He doesn't actually engage in discussion, exchanging viewpoints and discourse. No, that would be too hard. He just posts inflammatory sound bites, a kind of drive-by posting.

But in this case, in responding to his posts, I managed to get information from Mr. Cooper that I did not expect. I figured he was defending the blog post because he normally likes to bash Disney anyway. But, in this case, he had more reason to swoop in defense of the blog post. He volunteered that the blogger had sent him a draft of the blog post to review, supposedly for "factual information", whatever that means. Given all the problems with the post itself, and the misinformation by omission, I then understood even better why he felt the need to defend it, no matter how stupid the blog post was.

If I was in that position, I suppose I'd probably feel the need to try to defend it too. But then, I can't imagine that I'd ever be friends enough in the first place with someone who'd post that kind of childish and entitled rant. And if by some warp in the space/time continuum that it actually happened, I probably couldn't do much more than respond that I thought the blog post was completely ridiculous and made the blogger and his wife look like complete idiots, and that there was nothing I could do to help them and wanted no involvement with it.

Mr. Cooper went on to question what the description of "valid" is with regard to the AP that would be needed to get the alternate gifts. Hmmm, maybe I should have asked him what he thought the definition of "is" is. My response was that it doesn't matter what my description, his description, or anyone else's description of "valid" AP means. It matters what Disney means by that. If I saw that, even though I have a premium AP, I'd check to make sure I knew what they mean by "valid".

Mr. Cooper then went on this rant about how there's no information about the birthday promotion posted at the main entrance plaza or inside the park (to which someone correctly pointed out what the point would be of having the information posted INSIDE the park since you'd really need to know about the promotion before going into the park), and how Disney is almost keeping it a secret by not having any information there about the birthday promotion. Yeah, big secret, given the billboards plastered everywhere and all the other information available everywhere about the birthday promotion.

He wanted posters and flyers at each ticket booth, with all the information, including fine print (which, I guess, means the basic rules of the promotion itself) of the free on your birthday offer.

Here was my response:

And how many languages do you think that should be in? And you don't think that many people waiting in line who don't have a birthday won't take a lot of time quizzing each ticket seller about the program, thereby making the ticket lines unnecessarily longer and then more people will complain about how Disney customer service sucks because oh my gosh, the line took FOREVER.

And where are all the signs on property about the 2fer? Because, you know, nobody knows about THAT promotion either. And if you don't tell them about it ONCE THEY'RE ALREADY AT THE PARK, how in the heck are they supposed to know about it?.

Yes, that last paragraph was sarcasm. The 2fer program (for the price of a single-park ticket, you can visit both parks) is offered to Southern California residents and is *very* popular.


I've heard various complaints about the program, including that it's not fair that it's only on your birthday because my birthday is on X date, and I can't go to Disneyland on that day, so it doesn't do me any good, so the promotion sucks and no one should be able to take advantage of it. Ummm, ok. Disney has been offering a promotion at Walt Disney World whereby you pay for a 4-night package and you get 3 extra nights free. That's a great offer. I'm disappointed that I can't take advantage of that because a trip to WDW doesn't fit into our schedule this year. But do I begrudge others taking advantage of it? No. Do I think it's an unfair promotion because I can't personally take advantage of it. No. Am I throwing a fit because Disney is being terribly unfair and mean specifically to me, so they really need to give me something to make up for it? Ummm, no.

To me, Mr. Blogger and Mr. Cooper are just examples that show that for some people, if you give them a slice of cake, they'll complain that you didn't put chocolate sprinkles on it or that the slice wasn't big enough or that you didn't offer them a brownie or prime rib instead.

St. Patrick's Day

I will admit that I have no idea what St. Patrick's Day is about. You're supposed to wear green, but I don't know why. In school, I pretty much wore something green just so stupid kids wouldn't pinch or hit me. As an adult, I don't really do the "wear green" thing. "But everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day!" Ummm, no, I'm not. I like some Irish stuff, like their Dubliner cheese which is pretty yummy, and I love some other Irish stuff - but that doesn't make me Irish any more than loving sushi makes me Japanese. As far as I can tell, most people use St. Patrick's Day as an excuse to get totally wasted, on green beer no less. I'm not a fan of beer anyway, but green beer? Blech.

But, as usual, Google has a cool themed logo.





If you see a leprechaun today - wave hi to him.

wild koala saved from fires

The 2009 fires in the bush of Australia affected a lot of wildlife, including koalas. While they are very cute, they're generally not very friendly creatures, but a firefighter happened upon a hurt and scared koala, who was also quite thirsty.

Here's the footage.




Here's a followup video of "Sam" the koala. You can see that Sam's feet are still in bandages.




After the videos, there are also related links to further videos of Sam.

run for the hills

I saw this letter to Dear Abby:

DEAR ABBY: My boyfriend, "Josh," won't leave me alone. We have been living together for almost a year, and he is the ultimate overprotector. When I start to leave the house to run errands or anything, he stops me and asks, "Where do you think you're going?" When I tell him, he will then follow me to the location.

I love Josh and would never want to hurt his feelings, but I think he's a little too worried about me. I'm an adult, and I can take care of myself. Is Josh being too overprotective, or am I just crazy? -- OVERPROTECTED IN OREGON

My advice - RUN, now, quickly, and far away. That's not being "overprotective". That's being suffocatingly controlling. "Where are you going?" asked out of curiosity or just for informational purposes is one thing. But "where do you think you're going?" is a completely different question with lots of other connotations, and to me, an underlying threat. There's really no way to take that, especially from one adult to another.

He doesn't want to go with you on errands - he just wants to follow you. Yeah, ok, that's normal. RUN.AWAY. NOW.

Napa Rose - winning more awards

Have I mentioned how much I love Napa Rose, what an amazing restaurant it is, how great the staff is, and what incredible dining experiences we've had there? Yeah, OK, I might have mentioned that before.

Well, it's not like I'm the only one who thinks that way, and it's not like Napa Rose hasn't already won awards and accolades and other really good "a" words, but they've done it again.

A friend mentioned this to me a couple days ago, but I found this press release today.

In addition to other awards, two of Napa Rose's sous chefs, Francisco Origel and Alex Flores, were jointly named as Sous Chef of the Year by Southern California Restaurant Writers, Inc. - given that their range covers from Santa Barbara to the Mexico border, that is a very big honor indeed.

I remember Francisco from seeing him each time I've been to Napa Rose. Some of the chefs can be a bit more boisterous and outgoing, but he's a more unassuming man, though if you engage him in conversation, he is quite forthcoming with answers to questions about what they're cooking and such. It's nice to see him receive such a prestigious award.

I'm not completely sure who Alex is, but I think we saw him a couple months ago at least, when we were sitting at the counter at seats #1 and #2, and next to us was a couple who were in town from Sacramento making their very first visit to Napa Rose. They were absolutely raving about the food, and I think Alex was the chef running the pass that night - I don't think executive chef Andrew Sutton was there that night. He definitely seemed very knowledgeable and appreciative as he was talking to the couple next to us, and they were very thankful that he took such good care of them.

Congratulations to Francisco and Alex!

news roundup Friday - college basketball, lost-and-found kitty, stupid thief and MILs

Happy Friday the 13th for the second time this year! Here's a rundown of a few news stories that interested me.


six overtimes in college basketball game

I don't generally care about college sports. Yeah, I pay attention somewhat to college football, particularly when it comes to Cal, but while I might be interested in scores, I don't much care about watching the games. I have even less interest in college basketball. To me, that's about as bad as ... watching the WNBA. But while driving home last night, I heard the story about the college basketball game between Syracuse University and the University of Connecticut. Syracuse ended up winning the game, but not until after they'd played 6 overtime periods, with the game lasting a total of almost 4 hours, ending at 1:22am at Madison Square Garden in New York. I'm pretty amazed that almost the entire crowd was there for the entire game - overtimes included. Yeah, the game was exciting - Syracuse had a basket at the end of regulation which would have broken the tie and given them the win right then and there, but the basket was ruled to be too late, after time had already expired in the game - and once you've committed to one overtime and then two, you HAVE to stay to the end, but I am pretty impressed that most of them actually did stay. There have to be a lot of people exhausted at work today.

Speaking of which, Syracuse has a game tonight at 9pm Eastern time against West Virginia. Hope they'll be awake by then. And not limping.


why is the couch mewing at me?

A woman bought a used couch from a thrift store only to discover several days later that the couch came with an extra feature - a calico cat. I'm wondering how long the couch was at the store, and the cat didn't make any noise or expend any effort to get out then? And when a couch is donated to a store for re-sale, they don't clean it or anything, which would have exposed the cat? Ewww. I don't know that I would have thought about trying to contact the owner, though, so it's good that she did, and it's good that the cat was reunited with its owner. Orkid would be one of those who'd be locked away in a trunk and we'd never know it, because while she is now vocal TO us (she didn't mew for the longest time when we first got her, so we didn't even know what her voice sounded like), she doesn't make a sound when she's been accidentally locked somewhere. I'll just happen to notice that I haven't seen her in a while, and she's not in any of her normal napping places, so the husband and I will go around the house calling her. No answer. We'll try to remember what rooms we've been in where we normally keep the door closed, or we'll look in the closet or cabinets or something, and invariably, she snuck into a room she's not normally allowed in, and we didn't notice and closed the door on her inside. And we only find her if we open enough doors, and eventually, she'll walk out of one.


maybe next time, he should try robbing a police station

All I'm going to say is - don't mess with a Tae Kwon Do dude.


not exactly a monopoly

A woman has filed a lawsuit naming about forty bazillion people, accusing them of stealing her script and making the movie "Monster-in-Law" with it. First of all, I guess she's either casting the widest net possible, or she's just really ignorant about things, because she has named the actors of the movie in her lawsuit. Ummm, yeah, you know, they didn't write the script, they were just hired to do a movie, so really, they have no liability of any alleged theft of your screenplay. And secondly, while I haven't seen the film, problems with mothers-in-law isn't a unique situation, no matter how complicated the relationship might be. Unless there are incidents depicted in the film that are unique and have only happened to her and NO ONE ELSE EVER, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. I read about MIL-related incidents that happen all the time, and there are lots of similarities among the stories. And, on top of that, she doesn't seem to be able to make any connection as to how any of the forty bazillion people might have had any access to her script. There is such a thing as simultaneous creation.

"Iron Man" sequel casting news

So "Iron Man" Robert Downey, Jr. knows who he will be fighting with and against in the next movie. This article states that Scarlett Johansson will be playing Black Widow and Mickey Rourke will play Whiplash.

I'm not particularly a fan of Scarlett Johansson - I tend to like her or not like her on an individual basis, depending on the movie and role. It looks like Black Widow will mix it up with Iron Man a bit but will eventually fight on the same side. I'm willing to reserve judgement until I see her.

I don't have a feeling about Mickey Rourke one way or the other, but I can't say that I'm surprised he's playing a villain.

I loved the first movie, so I'm definitely ready for more.

80s flashback - Pat Benatar - "Love is a Battlefield"

I am without dispute a child of the 80s. I grew up with the music, the movies, the styles, the trends. Yeah, lots of stuff went wrong in the 80s too, but I prefer to focus on the good stuff, the stuff that made me happy. :)

So, I'm going to reminisce on occasion about random things in the 80s.

One of the quintessential performers in the 80s was Pat Benatar. She was opera-trained, but she really wanted to sing rock music, and belt them out she did. They weren't necessarily happy songs, but they were pretty amazing. And she had even more amazing videos. The 80s were when music videos rocked.

Here's "Love is a Battlefield". I always loved the choreography in the bar when the women are all dancing together. Stupid guy trying to boss them around - they're going to dance all over you! I think I actually tried to duplicate the moves. I said "tried", not "succeeded".