On a side note, the City of L.A. has finally decided to get rid of "little" Santa Monica Boulevard. For those of you unfamiliar with this idiosyncratic roadway, "little" Santa Monica ran alongside "real" Santa Monica from West L.A. to Beverly Hills. It's a very busy east-west route, and there was no logical reason for the redundancy. It looks like when they're done it will be twice as wide and much less confusing for the non-native driver. Good job.
So anyways, the one o'clock bargain matinee was still eight-fucking-fifty dollars at the Century City Theater, which makes me wonder what full price is. It was a full house. I'm pretty sure I was the only shikse in there too. And the youngest. It was a Woody Allen picture, after all.
I can't ruin the movie for you, because I want you to see it. The ending is really cool. I give it four stars: "liked it a lot." Woody can still make movies. I will say this: it's not about tennis. It's mainly a love triangle thing.
Scarlett Johansson was awesome as expected. Her character is an unlikeable but sexy bitch. It's a nuanced performance. There are a lot of close-up shots, and you can't fake that kind of acting. The girl's got amazing talent.
Another thing the movie reminded me about is how much I hate secret relationships. I've been in a few and they never ended well. Any time you have to keep a relationship secret, it's a sign that you probably shouldn't be in it. This includes work relationships, "his-mom-hates-you" relationships and of course cheating.
So there you go. I've started off the year with two pieces of good advice for you. Go see Match Point, and don't get into any secret relationships.
1
Sorry, Annie, we part company here. I wouldn't pay eight and a half cents to see any Woody Allen movie; in fact, I wouldn't watch one if you paid me.
He is a self absorbed asshole, and all his movies are the same, all about his internal feelings of guilt and need. His affair with his daughter is inexplicable and disgusting.
Nope, seen one Woody Allen movie, you'd seen 'em all.
P.S. Your bit about almost being married has put the lie to one of my favorite expressions: "No one ever said on his death bed that 'I should have spent more time at the office.'"
Posted by: shelly at January 02, 2006 03:45 AM (6mUkl)
2
I liked the movie as well, it had pretty good pace to it I thought. Anyhow, congrats on not being married yet!
Posted by: Scof at January 02, 2006 07:53 AM (RDouC)
3
shelly:
"He is a self absorbed asshole, and all his movies are the same."
In every movie he made after he turned 50 seemed to have only one purpose. Woody wanted a pretend and hopefully a real romance with his leading lady. It made those movies somewhat unbelievable because what beautiful woman would want a romance with a guy who looks 75.
Posted by: Jake at January 02, 2006 08:26 AM (r/5D/)
4
Well, I'm a huge Woody Allen fan, flaws and all. Yes, he's made some tedious films lately, and his personal life is appalling, but his insight into human relationships is magnificent.
Annika, I could agree with everything you wrote here:
"Another thing the movie reminded me about is how much I hate secret relationships. I've been in a few and they never ended well. Any time you have to keep a relationship secret, it's a sign that you probably shouldn't be in it. This includes work relationships, "his-mom-hates-you" relationships and of course cheating."
Posted by: Hugo at January 02, 2006 10:28 AM (Yu24L)
5
how long are you in LA for?
Posted by: tony at January 02, 2006 11:39 AM (UXXKq)
6
A surprising fact about Woody Allen:
He always brings his pictures in on time and on budget. Although his pictures are not that popular, he has enough fans so that his pictures always make money. Thus he can get financing for any picture he wants to make.
Posted by: Jake at January 02, 2006 12:47 PM (r/5D/)
7
mmmm...Scarlett Johansson.... (drool)
Posted by: Rob at January 02, 2006 03:33 PM (vEx0M)
8
Woody who? The only Woody I know is the winningest coach in Buckeye history. Speaking of Buckeyes, THAT's how you beat Notre Dame. Brady may be Laura Quinn's brother, but AJ is fucking her. Who would YOU want to be?
Barry Alvarez actually put together a game plan for his last game, and Wisconsin looked good against Auburn. Iowa got fucked by corrupt officiating, helmet-to-helmet contact my ass.
The moneyline is 3 to 1 for Florida State over Penn State on Tuesday. I'm a sucker for a moneyline bet like that, particularly since I don't think that Penn State is all that. At 2.5 to 1 Texas is looking better too.
Posted by: Casca at January 02, 2006 10:04 PM (2gORp)
9
Congrats to you for the Buckeyes win Casca. I always like it when the golden domers go down.
Woody Allen stopped being funny about 1979.
I just had a big new cinema open near my house which is very convenient. I still have to see Kong and Narnia, and maybe the Geisha movie.
Posted by: kyle N at January 03, 2006 03:20 AM (36gAv)
10
Happy belated New Years...
All the best!
Posted by: maizzy at January 03, 2006 06:58 AM (mjAFH)
11
Hello Annika and Happy New Year.
If I may return this thread to movies from the great cultural abyss of Football, (although I did watch the entire WVa-Georgia game last night) I saw Munich over the weekend and highly recommend it to all, (although I don't think it has opened yet nationally) this is a powerful, depressing, violent and difficult movie. The acting was excellent especially Eric Bana as the leader of the Israeli retaliation team. As a Jew I am mortified by the moral compromises that are made and equally at a loss to find a solution to the inexhaustible resovior of hatred that emanates from those that wish to annihilate Israel. THere are no parties to this struggle with clean hands yet I know Isreal must exist and I also have no doubt those wishing to destroy her will not be placated. Very depressing.
Shelly, for what it is worth Soon-Yi is/was not his daughter. She was Mia's adoptive daughter and lived very rarely in the apartment they (Allen and Farrow) shared. Still, I find the whole thing repugnant. Watching his movies, however, is about the film makers product, not his life. If we were to eschew the films, paintings and music made by men and women of dubious charater, our trips to the multiplex, art museums and CD racks would be few and far between. Mr Allen, flawed as he may be does offer us some insight into the human condition, which is all I ask from the art I pay money to see. And the guy is funny, there is no way you can tell me Mira SOrvino's hooker in Mighty Aphrodite was not really funny.
Posted by: strawman at January 03, 2006 10:28 AM (0ZdtC)
12
No you may not. Now stfu and go away.
Posted by: Casca at January 03, 2006 03:09 PM (2gORp)
13
Hey Casca you ignorant old fart-
Don't you think its time for the ice flow or won't your kids spring for the gas?
Posted by: strawman at January 03, 2006 03:15 PM (0ZdtC)
14
Casca, I tole you; just ignore the fucktard.
And, now that I rooted hard for OSU to cream the Domers (playing without the aid of Touchdown Jesus), I expect you to pull hard for the Trojans.
Leave no doubt.
Posted by: shelly at January 03, 2006 04:07 PM (6mUkl)
15
I want to suck Woody's semen stained shorts!
Posted by: LibRAl at January 03, 2006 04:49 PM (V2eAR)
16
Casca-
You better listen to Shelly. He's in a foul mood and he might just fling a law book at ya. His pie in the sky hopes for gaining seats in the mid-terms in the face of a failed Iraq policy are fading as fast as Jack AbramoffÂ’s guts are hitting the floor. Indictments are going to start flying and gosh, what a surprise, they are all aimed Republicans! Chief procurement agent at the WH already indicted, Delay already indicted for subverting the democratic process in Tex ass, and now new crimes are already surfacing. This scumbag from Ohio and the interior department deputy, and who knows how many others who sold their access. (Oh, did he tell you the Democrats do it too and that these justice people are on some partisan vendetta? Not yet? Fear not, he will. Like that L-winger Luttig who told the President to stuff it and obey the rule of law.)The money grubbing rats that they are, they will each implicate up the ladder to save their skins and the swing in the house will tell the tale. It is a very sad day for Shelly, Casca, so stop jawing at me and give him some sympathy? OK? IÂ’m in a good mood and your antagonism only adds to it. HowÂ’s that for incentive?
Posted by: Strawman at January 03, 2006 04:58 PM (0ZdtC)
17
Wrong again, Strawman. At least try to be informed. The Abramoff scandal is going to touch Reps and Dems----especially those dealing with Indians and their vile casinos. What are you going to say when your boy, Reid, is facing scrutiny? And, of course, the Dems will over-reach as always. Pathetic dolts will trot out the two most idiotic members of congress, Pelosi and Boxer, to say how awful the Reps are...and America will yawn. So, nice try. Though your buddies in the MSM will try to paint this as a Reps only scandal, they will fail....because people like Annika and other bloggers will get out the truth.
By the way, how much would you like to wager that the phony indictment of Delay will end in acquital? The indictment is almost a bigger joke than is the prosecuter who brought it.
p.s. were you ever this upset when Clinton and his cronies sold out to the Red Chinese? I guess it is ok to sell out to your comrades, eh?
Posted by: Blu at January 03, 2006 08:24 PM (xWE3I)
18
Whew, what a great game, PSU vs Fl St! OMFG, I think it shaved ten years off my life!! It was right up there with Ohio State vs Cryami 2002!!! Triple fucking overtime!!!!
The whole media being in the tank for Penn State really offends an afficianado. PSU and their weak ass schedule should have been ranked around 15th. They struggled to beat the 22nd ranked team in the NCAA.
Sorry Shelly, I'm expecting a great game tomorrow, and anything can happen. If USC shuts down Vince Young, I'll proclaim them the true numba wun!
Posted by: Casca at January 03, 2006 10:08 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: shelly at January 04, 2006 06:17 AM (6mUkl)
20
memo to Penn State and Seminole kickers:
Laces out, guys.
Posted by: annika at January 04, 2006 09:36 AM (zAOEU)
21
Annika,
I'm waiting for a Rose Bowl post........
I'm a USC alum, so I'm pulling for the So. Cal boys. But I'm still a little worried. The defense has to actually stop somebody. If Texas can avoid the huge plays that USC always seems to come up with, I think that they have a very good chance.
Posted by: Blu at January 04, 2006 10:06 AM (xWE3I)
22
Blu,
What have I ever said about Clinton and his policies that makes you think I would defend any or all of his actions? I don't exactly know what you are refering to when you say "sold out to the red chinese" so you may enlighten me.
The scandal that may ensue from JA will no doubt touch many on the other side of the isle but if the ratio is more than 70-30 i will be surprised. It was fun to watch Frist give away the 69K that JA gave him. Another rat trying to wipe his hands clean. Delay is an enemy of democracy and whether the money laundering charge sticks or not, he conspired to gerrymander in a fashion that EVERTY Justice lawyer said was a violation of the Voting Rights Act, but they were overridden by a cronie of W's. He is a bug.
Posted by: Strawman at January 04, 2006 12:09 PM (0ZdtC)
23
The districts in Texas now reflect how Texans vote. They did not before redistricting. Texas is an overwhelmingly Republican state and ought to reflect this in the House. The Democrats whining about "voting rights" is a joke. After redistricting there is more minority representation rather than less---something the MSM generally forgets to include in their stories because it doesn't fit the template. Dems/Liberals, however, don't consider minority Reps to be their kind of minorities. In fact, they have all sorts of racist names for them. The Voting Rights Act is a relic of the past that needs to go away. But it won't because of the professional liberal whiners (e.g. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton)who might have to work for a living if they couldn't convince everybody of how badly the [insert favorite victim]is being treated in America. These are the same folks who scream "discrimination" if you dare suggest that a person show ID before he/she votes. Silly, left-wing histrionics.
p.s. Are you kidding me about the Clinton/China stuff? You really don't remember? John Huang? Charles Yah Lin Trie? Of course, Janet Reno made certain nothing ever really happened to Clinton/Gore. And the Gorelick memo made certain that intelligence information obtained overseas couldn't be used in domestic cases.
Posted by: Blu at January 04, 2006 01:00 PM (xWE3I)
24
Blu,
I guess I'll just look up the china stuff.
As for the voting.... Are you serious? A state should be cut up to reflect the overall distribution of registered voters? Where does it say that in the Contitution? I thought it said equal number of voters per district with no mention of party affiliation. You would suggest that no matter how people vote the distribution of Rep's should always reflect the registeration numbers? That's the sickest thing I've heard in a long time. What little regard you have for Americans. Why don't we just dispense with elections then and send to congress the "proper" number of Reps from each party based on how the citizens registered? WHy not do the same for presidential election? There are far more Americans registered as Dem's then Rep's so it stands to reason America should have a president from the democratic party. I think you've been hitting the bong a little hard tonight.
Posted by: strawman at January 04, 2006 03:06 PM (0ZdtC)
25
Don't use the stuff, but do plan on having a few beers while watching the Rose Bowl.
Prior to the Reps taken over the State legislature, the Dems had gerrymandered the State in such a way as to delute Republican strength. The Reps redistricting corrected a very undemocratic district map. Explain to me how or why a State that is overwhelmingly Rep could/would have roughly equal number of Rep/Dem reps? Answer: it shouldn't and wouldn't. I'd love for California to send a majority of Reps to the House...but guess what? California is an overwhelmingly Democrat state. The Dems determine the districts. If the Reps want more seats, then they will have to convince more people and change hearts and minds. Until then, the Democrats will (and rightly so) send more reps to the House.
If you want to discuss the rights or wrongs of gerrymandering, you are getting into a long debated topic.
And, by the way, there are not "far more" registered Dems than Reps. The numbers are very close with "independent" making big gains over the past two decades. Dems affiliation is app. 34% and Rep is about 32%. However, Republicans are, for a host of reasons including education and economic status, more likely to vote. (Not to mention the fact that many Dem voters are either dead or illegal.)
Posted by: Blu at January 04, 2006 04:13 PM (xWE3I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
