LOST - The Other Woman

Last night's episode served to highlight the numerous triangles among the characters:

1. Kate, Jack, Sawyer
2. Kate, Jack, Juliette
3. Juliette, Goodwin, Harper
4. Juliette, Goodwin, Ben
5. Juliette, Ben, Jack

That Juliette--she sure does get around....

We were back to flashbacks in a Juliette centric episode where we learned:

• Ben has a crush on Juliette and considers her to be his.
  
  
• Juliette looks just like someone (Who?) from Ben's past.
  
  
• Ben is a big tease--we still don't know who his man on the boat is! Although (according to Ben) we might want to sit down because (according to next week's teaser) it's someone we never expected to see again. Well, since most of us expect it to be Michael, maybe it isn't. Either that or the ABC marketing department is a big bunch of losers who have no idea that we've already figured it out...
  
  
• Faraday and Charlotte came to render the chemical gases in the Tempest (the electrical station which powers the island) inert--thus preventing Ben from using them again to kill everyone on the island. Juliette tells Jack that, "These people came here to wage war against Ben and Ben is going to win."
  
  
• John Locke is a big wuss--and a control freak. Not a great combination...
  
  
• Charles Widmore is the "enemy" whose freighter brought Miles, Faraday, Charlotte, Frank and Naomi to the island. According to Ben, he wants to exploit it. Ben has a video showing Widmore overseeing one of Ben's men being beaten. It sure looks to me like Goodwin, doesn't it? Is it possible that like Mikhail, Goodwin was resurrected? Could HE be Ben's man on the boat?
  
  
• Juliette and Jack hear the whispers which precede Harper's arrival and disappearance. What are the whisper exactly? Jacob? The smoke monster? The island?
  
  
• Harper tells Juliette that Ben is exactly where he wants to be. This is the same thing that Miles told Kate in the Eggtown episode.
  
  
• Speaking of Kate--how is it that she such an excellent tracker? She is able to pick up Juliette's trail and even tell that Charlotte and Faraday were half an hour ahead of her? Did I miss the flashback that showed her getting her Sacajawea Girl Scout merit badge?
  
  
• And Charlotte's a bit of a bad ass for an anthropologist, isn't she? Didn't you love how she coldcocked Kate (Say it three times fast!) and the catfight with Juliette at the Tempest?
  
  
• Best line of the night: When John Locke brings Ben his meal which happens to be cooked rabbit, Ben asks "This didn't have a number on it, did it?"
  

In next week's episode, we're supposed to find out the final two members of the Oceanic Six (it's looking like Sun is one of them) and who Ben's man on the freighter is (Are we laying odds that it's Michael? Or perhaps Goodwin?). Until then, check out the recap on Lostpedia, screencaps on Lost Easter Eggs and washingtonpost.com's Jen Chaney and Liz Kelly's Dueling Analyses (and a Friday chat!) at Celebritology.

Imposing Order onto Chaos

Otherwise known as trying to de-clutter my life. Or at least my living space. So I headed down to IKEA today (that's Swedish for "Some assembly required" followed by maniacal laughter...) looking for ways to maximize my little office and crowded closets. I was hoping to find a hutch to set atop my desk (well, it's actually just a table) to give me more storage space. That didn't pan
out and after wandering around the store for about two hours, I did manage to find this:

It looks like some weird little bookshelf, but actually it's a table leg. I just have to undo the legs from the left side of my desk--I mean table--and put this in their place and voila! Instant storage. I bought black metal mesh baskets from Target that were designed to store DVDs but I will use as pseudo-drawers. Pretty cool, huh?

Speaking of Target, I made out even better there. In addition to the DVD storage baskets, I got a black plastic bin for storing files and a black metal mesh (sense a theme here?) rolling cart to replace my battered white rolling cart which has seen better days.


Although I didn't find the hutch I was looking for, I did run into my GP at IKEA. How weird is that? Also got a new mop, some plastic tumblers and a shoe rack all for about $100. Not quite the the haul I had envisioned, but it's a start. Now I just need to assemble my table leg avec storage, clean out all my excess junk and reorganize my office. And then perhaps I'll be able to find a working pen when I need one...

Dream On

I've been searching for a way to escape the mad Hungarian door slammer, the skeevy geezer whose porn-watching seeps through my walls, thuds and clatter from the obnoxious guy next door. In other words, my lovely neighbors--the whole inconsiderate lot of them! This means, I'm trying to find a new place to live.

So I do the Craigslist thing--combing through the numerous ads posted every day for housing on the westside. Given my limited funds, it's nearly impossible. I've also posted an ad of my own which outlines my specific requirement, my budgetary limitations along with an offer to provide access to my considerable talents (bookkeeping, computer stuff, writing/editing, house management, etc.) in exchange for a reduction or abatement in rent. I'm not expecting a miracle (although that would be a nice change of pace...), but it's sort of an exercise in manifestation--you know? Put it out there for the universe. Like throwing a rock into a pond and having the ripples spread out, reaching back to shore.

Unfortunately, the response I got today was like having a rock thrown back at me. An e-mail with two words: Dream on. Now, I've had plenty of people respond to my ad with time wasting responses. But they are usually wasting MY time. Why someone would be so mean-spirited to bother wasting their own time, I have no clue. Sad and pathetic that some loser is reduced to providing nasty feedback to complete strangers because they've got nothing better to do with their time.

Of those wasting my time, there's been Michelle who is renting a room in her 4 bedroom house. Where that house is, I've no idea because Michelle didn't bother to include that info, or how much the rent would be, or any details on the space she was offering. My ad specifically states that I'm not looking for just a "room" as well as requesting that people responding give me detailed information of the situation. When I wrote to Michelle asking for details, she declined to reply. Whatever.

Michelle's not the only person to completely disregard my requirements. Tim offered me a detached studio in a perfect location for me. But when I questioned him further about the "studio" it turns out it's just a detached room in his backyard. All the "amenities"--as he put it--are located in the main house. Um, excuse me? When did a BATHROOM become an "amenity"? It's a freaking necessity! Can you imagine waking up in the middle of the night and needing to pee and having to walk across a cold, wet lawn in the middle of the night to get to the bathroom?!!! That's just nuts!

Another person e-mailed me three times about the "guest suite" (that's bedroom/bathroom) they were offering in Pasadena. Since I specifically stated I was looking in Santa Monica--perhaps West L.A. or Mar Vista--and that I most definitely was not interested in commuting, I'm not sure why this person thought this would be a great fit for me. Or why they thought I wanted to live with their elderly, disabled father and his caregiver. The last e-mail stated they went through my list of requirements one by one. Really? Did you miss the one about SANTA MONICA? Working on the WESTSIDE and not wanting to commute? Not particularly interested in a SHARE? Or just a "room" (the additional bathroom doesn't make it a "suite")?

Of course, Pasadena is still way closer to some of the other responses I've gotten. Chatsworth, Sun Valley, Ventura--and recently, 2 Windsor Court, Bramley, Leeds LS13 3ST R. I don't think that's in California. The rent was only $500 a month--but I think that's in pounds or maybe Euros. No doubt it's some scam.Another guy was looking for someone to sublet his place for six months while he traveled--even thought I specifically stated I wasn't looking for a short term situation (less than a year). I mean, it's already been more than a year and I haven't found a place yet. I'm supposed to move and start looking again so I can move AGAIN in six months? I don't think so...

A couple others were more in line with my requirements--but it was close but no cigar. I tried responding to Grace who offered to share her Mar Vista home. Unfortunately my e-mail kept bouncing back because her in-box was full. Ah, well--I guess it wasn't meant to be. She has a dog and I'm allergic so it's probably for the best...

I saw a place last week that was almost ideal. A bit more than I wanted to pay, but very reasonable given rental rates in L.A. A one bedroom in Santa Monica sharing only one wall with a neighbor. Small, not too much in the way of closet space, on-street parking--but I thought it was workable. Unfortunately the landlord/owner decided to rent it to someone she knows. I guess I have to be fatalistic about this one as well and chalk it up to "not meant to be."

It could be worse--I could be getting lewd suggestions as to how I might be able to "reduce my rent" in exchange for services provided. As I've posted before, there are plenty of predators and, let's face it, just plain LOSERS out there looking to take advantage. But today I was shocked to see an ad from (ostensibly) a young woman offering her "goodies" in exchange for free rent. The posting came complete with boob and vag shots (UGH!) and some, uh, SIZE requirements of her own. I hope it was some sick prank meant to yank the chain of some of these incessant losers posting and re-posting on Craigslist. Unfortunately, it would probably only inspire them to KEEP posting.

The only real option I have is to substantially increase my income thus increasing my rental budget and therefore my housing options as well. In the meantime, I send out missives to the universe hoping that idiots, losers and assholes move along and leave me alone.

Oh, and I will keep dreaming on as well...

City of Men

Friendship, fatherhood and the favelas of Rio de Janeiro comprise the tale told in City of Men. The film vividly depicts the seamier side of life--poverty, drugs, gangs, violence--as a stark contrast to the affluence of the Brazilian tropical resort paradise. Telling the story of best friends Ace and Wallace, two fatherless boys just turning eighteen, City of Men takes us along on their journey to adulthood. Although given the random violence and tenuousness of life in the poverty-striken hillsides of Rio, the odds against the two boys are great.

Although it's less stylized, more conventional and not nearly as brilliant as its predecessor City of God (interesting factoid: Seu Jorge who had a small part in The Life Aquatic and contributed to its soundtrack was featured in City of God), it still offers a stunning look at the inhabitants who live on the fringe. Inured to gang warfare and violence, the sound of a gunshot invokes only a "one less" response from one the characters. And with the sound of machine gunfire when a gang war erupts, residents huddle behind metal doors waiting for the shooting to cease. There is death, homelessness, betrayal and constant shifts in power, but life goes on.

With English subtitles, a cast of unknowns and limited distribution, it's unfortunate that few people will see this film. Despite the large cast (it took me a while to figure out who was who and what was what) and Portuguese dialog, it's an engrossing look at a way of life that is so foreign to most of us. Fatherless and future-less with a destiny left to the whims of fate, it's easy to see why the gang culture and the gun culture poses such an attractive alternative to those trapped in an unending cycle of poverty. As the tagline for the film goes: "An unforgettable tale of friendship and survival in a city where the greatest challenge is growing up."

Elvis Costello - The Only Flame in Town

I've long admired the wordplay of Elvis Costello. While Everyday I Write the Book may be his most literary song, I think The Only Flame in Town is his most literate. I get shivers with lyrics like:

But you blew hot and cold
Turned my heart to a cinder
And with each passing day
You're less tender and more tinder...

Brilliant.

The video is classic 80s cheesefest (complete with Darryl Hall on backing vocals!), but what can I say--despite it coming from the infamous Good-bye Cruel World album, this is my favorite Elvis song.



The Only Flame in Town

I know a girl
got my mind in a mess
I never heard her say
goodnight and God bless
She's not the only flame in town

And when we're alone
we never quarrel
I'm miles away
now here's the moral
She's not the only flame in town

She's not the only flame in town
She's got to stop thinking
that I'm carrying this torch around

He struck a match and it lit up her face
We should have struck a match, girl
To burn down the whole place
Now you're not the only flame in town

But you blew hot and cold
Turned my heart to a cinder
And with each passing day
You're less tender and more tinder
Now you're not the only flame in town

She's not the only flame in town
She's got to stop thinking
that I'm carrying this torch around

Thought I saw your face in the fire
But it's so hard to remember
Even an inferno can cool down to an ember
Now you're not the only flame

You're not the only flame
You're not the only flame in town

The Other Boleyn Girl

I got to satiate my appetite for historical drama today and I must say--I'm still hungry! Not for more of the Hollywood movie version of The Other Boleyn Girl, but for a decent costume drama in general. My friend Stevie is sending me copy of season one of The Tudors. Perhaps that will do it, because ScarJo and NatPo sure didn't.

Not that it was their fault. They looked lovely. And the costume part of the tale of Anne Boleyn's sister was gorgeous as expected. I knew the screenplay would take liberties with Philippa Gregory's best selling novel and I had no problem with that, but the story as told on screen was not anything like the source material on which it was based. Gregory's novel told the story of Anne Boleyn through the eyes of her sister Mary--who preceded Anne in the affections of King Henry. Gregory was fascinated by this little known historical character and based on the fact that Mary survived the ensuing downfall of the Boleyns unscathed and defied her family's expectations, married a commoner and "lived happily ever after," she fashioned Mary as a proto-feminist character.

The film decides not to tell the story from Mary's perspective at all. In fact, there's no perspective or point-of-view whatsoever. While details of the whens, hows and wheres, condensing of events, elimination or amalgamation of characters is to be expected in adapting a novel to the screen, completely disregarding the basic premise or HOOK of the story--the OTHER Boleyn girl--is inexplicable. Why base the film on Gregory's novel at all? Why not tell yet another version of Anne of a Thousand Days? Scarlett's Mary may have been a peripheral character in history, but she was the main event in the book. Even the sibling rivalry aspect was given short shrift in this telling.

Other odd choices: Eric Bana portraying the strawberry blonde King Henry. Seriously, there were no fair haired actors to play the part? At times Bana's hair took on a reddish hue, but let's face--he's much too dark to play the part. And speaking of odd casting choices, why have the oddly homely Eddie Redmayne playing Mary's strapping commoner future husband William Stafford? Had they switched the actor playing her first husband William Carey with Redmayne, I would have found it more credible and palatable to have Mary fall for the lowly farmer. Not that the movie gave any time or attention to the love story that was a crucial part of the book. And speaking of Mary's husbands--at some point in the story, William Carey dies. But no mention is made of it in the movie. He just disappears. Making it very odd and unsettling when William Stafford proposes to her. Did that end up on the editing floor?

Part of the discord between Mary and Anne was that Mary allegedly "loved" Henry while Anne usurped his affection purely out of ambition. Yet we are never shown the development of any feelings between Mary and Henry. Not even so much as a series of shots set against a spinet playing chamber music? With a runtime of under two hours, surely several minutes could have been spared to illuminate the development of each of the sisters relationship with the King. The charming brother George is never shown to be charming. In fact, all the charms of the characters--Anne's clever manipulations of Henry (Although her reign as Queen was short, she did manage to string him along for 7-8 years while waiting for a way to end his marriage to Queen Catherine), Henry's passion and vigor, even Mary's ultimate strength and independence are lost in this story that is sadly lacking in focus.

At times I even found myself dozing off as I struggled to stay interested and invested in the movie. The film ends with the ironic footnote that although Anne's fate was sealed by her inability to provide Henry with a male heir, she was responsible for the birth of one of the most powerful monarchs England has ever known: Elizabeth. Of course, that's an entirely different movie. And a much better one at that...

Write what you know...

Once upon a time, I had a job writing articles for a relationship website. Which was ironic since I'm the world's worst expert on the topic. But the articles I wrote were really, really good. I happened upon the website the other day and some of my stuff is still up there--three years later. The main reason I quit is that the guy in charge of the operation (actually HE would be the world's worst relationship expert!) was a complete and utter asshole. And they didn't pay me jackshit or even give me a byline for material that obviously had withstood the test of time. Note to all writers: Don't give it away for free! Content is King!

I did exact a bit of revenge: my asshole ex-employer became a character in one of my screenplays. If the movie ever gets made, I doubt he'd recognize himself (despite the very obvious pseudonym), but I'm sure anyone who has ever worked for him would:

INT. JEFFRIES MEDIA GROUP - DAY

Allison sits across from Owen, scribbling on her notepad.

Owen is reclining in his chair and rattling notes to her
while simultaneously checking his e-mail.

Allison goes through the motions, but Owen's voice is just
an incessant drone:

OWEN
...media buys...placement...check
with..Youngman...rewrite...

Allison stares out the big glass window behind Owen's desk.

DISSOLVE TO:

Owen rocks and reclines in his oversized leather chair. The
chair tilts back--a bit too far--and CRASHES through the
plate glass window.

BACK TO REALITY

Owen is sitting up--laser eyes focused on the day-dreaming
Allison.

OWEN
I said--did you get that?

Allison snaps to attention.

ALLISON
Yes. I got it, Owen.

Owen looks dubious.

OWEN
Repeat it back to me.

Allison locks eyes with Owen. She has reached her limit.

ALLISON
Owen, I'm not a five year-old. I
wish you would stop treating me like
I'm completely incompetent.

OWEN
Well, Allison--I wish I didn't have
to double-check every little thing
you do, either.

ALLISON
You don't--

Owen sighs and shakes his head.

OWEN
I've tried to guide you, but you
keep resisting. You always make
things so difficult...

ALLISON
I'm not trying to make things
difficult--

OWEN
You see? There you go again. I am
trying to communicate with you and
instead of listening, you are being
defensive. I'm just trying to help
you, Allison.

ALLISON
I'm not being defensive, I'm just
trying--

OWEN
But that's the point--maybe the truth
is you are trying, maybe this is
truly the best you are capable of,
maybe you think I'm being an
asshole...

Owen smirks self-righteously.

OWEN (CONT'D)
But the fact is, the truth doesn't
matter. It doesn't matter in this
job, in politics or in life. What
matters is the perception of truth.
And my perception is that maybe you're
just not cut out to be my assistant.

Owen gives Allison a condescending smile. Allison stares
back at him.

CUT TO:
Allison punches Owen SMACK in the face. Owen grips his nose
as it spurts blood.

BACK TO REALITY

ALLISON
So...? Are you firing me?

OWEN
No. No. Not at all. Why don't we
just call it amicable parting of the
ways due to a mutual realization of
incompatible work styles?

Allison looks at Owen, dumbfounded.

ALLISON
So--I'm fired.

Owen sighs.

OWEN
See--you're being difficult again.
I was trying to give it a positive
spin--

He swivels away from her.

OWEN (CONT'D)
You can clear out your desk. I'll
cut your final check.

INT. JEFFRIES MEDIA GROUP - LATER

Allison has a box packed with her belongings. Owen approaches
her desk, check in hand.

Allison takes the check. She looks at it, concerned.

ALLISON
Owen, you forgot to include the pay
out for the two weeks vacation that
I never got a chance to take this
summer...

OWEN
Well--you forgot to give me the
standard two weeks notice--so we're
even...

ALLISON
But you fired me...

Owen sighs, aggravated.

OWEN

There you go--arguing again. I hope
you're not expecting a reference
letter...

Owen turns on heel and walks into his office, shutting the door.

Sputnik Mania

On October 4, 1957, the Russians launched the first satellite into space. It was called Sputnik. And its orbit around the earth fueled both the sci-fi fantasies and Cold War fears of an entire nation. Initially cause for inspiration and celebration, Sputnik soon became the space age measuring stick by which the United States fell short. And following on the heels of the unmatched technical achievement came fears of Soviet world domination: the end of freedom and democracy as Communism overtakes the planet. Or even worse, the nuclear annihilation of civilization.

David Hoffman's documentary Sputnik Mania traces the events that followed the launch of Sputnik 1 in painstaking and loving detail. From the space race that led to an arms race that finally led to the creation of NASA--a civilian, rather than military, agency for the furthering of peaceful space exploration for the benefit of all mankind. Using news footage, old headlines, defense videos and a soundtrack that features music from 1957-58, Hoffman faithfully captures the mood and milieu of that period. From the seriously authoritative narration by Liev Schreiber to the newscast footage of journalistic giants like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow to quotes by then President Eisenhower, the filmmaker is carefully even-handed in depicting the events which set the Cold War into a deep freeze and set the arms race on the fast track.

According to Hoffman,

"With my editor, John Vincent Barrett, I believe we created a new documentary style. A style that embraces the timeless feel of black-and-white footage while staying true to the soundtrack of that era. I found the film in a wide array of places – primarily from You Tube and eBay actually. The real challenge however was diligently tracking the footage from middle European and Russian underground sources. Once that was underway, we then had to secure the rights by contacting quite a few people – eventually paying through the nose!"

While neutrality is an admirable trait for a historical documentary, Sputnik Mania lacks the verve and spice--and entertainment factor--of the more agenda-driven Michael Moore type of film. Even when the "mania" reaches a fever pitch of mass hysteria--the building of bomb shelters by suburban middle class residents, aid raid drills in New York City, Soviet propaganda movies (which, by the way, weren't too far off the mark in their depiction of the racial strife and class warfare occurring in the U.S.)--Hoffman's film stays balanced and just a wee bit boring. Seriously, I've sat through films on photosynthesis in the eighth grade that were more compelling--but then I've got a thing for time lapse photography...

There's a brief appearance by comedian Robert Klein, who dryly recounts his experience as a kid in 1958 and when he was given dogtags by his teacher in school who explained that they could withstand temperatures up to 1,000 degrees centigrade, so that "we could be identified in the case we were burned beyond recognition." A little more irreverence or maybe a bit more levity (and perhaps Klein handling narration duties?) would have benefited the telling of the story. Of the few moments of sublime surreality, my favorite was a quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower responding to the call to step up the arms race:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this, a modern brick school in more than 30 cities."

Wow. Boggles the mind, doesn't it? This from a former five-star general AND a Republican. Where are you Ike when we need you! The American reaction to "Muttnik" was another intriguing snippet. Imagine if PETA had been active in 1958! Sergei Krushchev, son of Nikita, offers some spry and insightful comments over the course of the story and toward the end of the film, a brief appearance by "Rocket Boy" Homer Hickam (subject of the Jake Gyllenhaal movie October Sky) is inserted with very little fanfare. A bit more in the way of contextual clues and references would offer viewers a better way to synthesize the information presented.

Hoffman says of his intent:

"In the end, I hope audiences will walk away thinking about the present. For instance, here we are in an election year where it is obvious that leadership matters. SPUTNIK MANIA uncovers that President Eisenhower was a strategic leader while it appears that President Bush has been a tactical leader. The film not only brings to light the importance of long-term strategies directing short-term actions or inactions, but also reminds us that little has changed from fifty years ago. Sputnik reveals our inner-most reactions to fear and how and why we ultimately turned those visceral reactions into a much larger positive. I believe that Sputnik was not just a piece of American history, but a piece of world history and is a valuable learning tool for all of the world's citizens."

I don't know that Sputnik Mania achieves all that, but it does offer a thorough and detailed accounting of the year following the Sputnik launch. For those who marveled at October Sky, watched every installment of From the Earth to the Moon and relived their own astronaut fantasies while viewing Apollo 13, Sputnik Mania is informative and insightful. It opens March 14th in New York City at the IFC Center and it offers an intriguing look at a pivotal moment in American history.

LOST - The Constant

Here we'd settled nicely into the whole "flash forward" device only to have the rug pulled out from underneath us again. Last night's episode of LOST didn't use the flash forward technique and wasn't quite a flashback as Desmond--similar to last season's Flashes Before Your Eyes--seemed to toggle back and forth between 2004 and 1996.

So time travel IS going to be a theme related to the island's mystical properties. This raises some interesting possibilities. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly's Doc Jensen, the alternate reality theory was broached:

DOC JENSEN: Another popular theory making the rounds is that we're dealing with alternate realities. For example, there are people who think the flash-forwards are merely possible future scenarios, not written in stone.

CARLTON CUSE: We want people to believe in the stakes of the show. The problem with alternative realities is that you never know when the rug is going to be pulled out from under you. We want the audience to believe that the jeopardy is real. Postulating alternative realities would be an escape valve that would be damaging that as a narrative value.

DAMON LINDELOF: You can get away with it in Heroes, where there is an apocalyptic future you want to avoid. But we're doing the opposite. We want to work toward a future where Jack is absolutely miserable and wants to go back to the Island. Everything we present to the audience has to be factual.

CUSE: We want the audience to believe that is THE future. We don't want people thinking, ''Well, since there are five iterations of this, I'm not going to invest in what's happening to the characters.''

And if that's not enough for you, Daniel Faraday reiterated that stance in The Constant telling Desmond, "You can't change the future." Hmmm, a bit Calvinistic wouldn't you say?

So we can travel through time, and time perceptions are different on the island than off as Daniel tells a worried Jack and Juliette who haven't heard from Sayid and Desmond that, "Your perception of how long your friends have been gone may not be how long they've actually been gone." Add to that the chopper's arrival on the freighter mid-day when they left at dusk and you've got some odd time anomalies. Oddly enough, according to the calendar on the freighter shows that it is Christmas Eve 2004--which is 94 days from when Flight 815 crashed. So obviously freighter time, real world time and island time aren't THAT out of sync...

Very cool how Daniel was able to direct the time-jumping Desmond to his past self--a professor of physics at Oxford--in order to help him with the shifting. A little like Doc Brown and Marty McFly in Back to the Future, no? 1996 Daniel tells Desmond that he needs a "constant" to anchor him in one place. Otherwise he could end up like Daniel's lab rat, Eloise, who suffers from a brain aneurysm and dies. Eloise's fate does happen to Minkowski, who is also suffering from time shifts. So that's it for Fisher Stevens and the mysterious Minkowski? I was expecting more...Obviously Minkowski isn't Ben's mole. And it would appear that Ben's mole is helping the Losties on board the freighter as Minkowski tells Des and Sayid, "Looks like you have a friend on this boat," when the sickbay door is discovered to be ajar allowing them to escape. Did the mole also destroy the phone lines in the communications room?

Looks like we might be getting answers about the Black Rock--a 19th century merchant ship that was shipwrecked on the island in 1845--this season. Charles Widmore purchased the captain's journal at an auction. Could the captain be Richard Alpert? It appears that Black Rock has a Hanso connection as well as the owner of the journal up for sale is Tovar Hanso.

Desmond manages to establish Penny as his anchor and ground himself back in 2004. A tearful phone exchange has Penny promising to find him. She tells him, "I know about the island." So if the freighter people aren't there to help the Losties off the island, will it be Penelope Widmore who rescues them? And with the notation in Daniel's journal that says, "If anything goes wrong Desmond Hume will be my constant," can we expect more time-shifting in upcoming episodes?

To get even more immersed in LOST, check out the recap at Lostpedia, screencaps at Lost Easter Eggs, Jen Chaney and Liz Kelly's Dueling Analyses on Celebritology and other assorted goodies at Lost Media.

Aaarrrgggggghhhh!!!!

That was my day yesterday. A dental cleaning at UCLA School of Dentistry at 1:30 pm followed by a visit to their Dermatology department for an appointment at 3 pm. Sounds easy enough, doesn't it? Think again...

Usually appointments can take up to three hours as the students get faculty to review and sign off on their work every step of the way. But I'd been through a three hour long dental exam where my teeth and gums were tapped, poked and prodded. This was just a cleaning done by a dental hygiene student. Surely I wouldn't be subjected to the same rigmarole . Actually, it was far worse.

I got there early. Explained I had another appointment at 3 pm and sent another hygiene student to fetch mine. That took 5 minutes. Clock ticking, the skittish little student arrived--only to inform me I had a $20 balance on my account. We went to the billing department where we were ignored for several minutes. A staffer printed out the detail of my account and announced that I'd only paid $25 for a $45 cleaning last May. I said I didn't think so. Then after studying my bill for several more precious minutes, she said I'd been charged for the 3 hour dental exam last month. Excuse me, I paid $65 for x-rays for said exam--now they tell me AFTER the fact, that the three excruciating hours I spent being tapped, poked and prodded all in the name of student dentistry. It's not like it was something I signed up for!), the three hours of my life I will never get back, that incurred a charge of $20? I should have charged them for MY time. Net it against the $85. They still owe me $65.

I said I'd get in touch with my dental student and ask her about it. But meanwhile, could we not just get going on the cleaning? The student brought me up to the third floor. Actually, she brought me up to the second floor then looked around lost because her cubicle had been taken, then realized we were on the second and not third floor and then we went up to the third floor. Tick tock. Tick tock. She disappears for ten minutes. Returns with the faculty supervisor who is the smarmiest piece of work you'd ever want to meet so that the faculty supervisor can explain to me that they will not do my cleaning until the $20 charge is paid. And I have to pay in advance for the cleaning. I've been going to UCLA for my dental appointments for THREE years, have always paid the same day I've gotten work done and now I'm being treated like some kind of deadbeat. Lovely.

After contacting my dental student to ask about the charge (she claims it was a "favor"--that usually they charge more for three hour long dental torture sessions. WTF?!!!), I went down to the cashier to pay it. There was a line. Tick tock tick tock. The cashier works like she's in a vat of mud. Sloooooowwwww. After 45 minutes have been wasted, I'm ready to get my cleaning.

But wait--not so fast! The dental hygiene student needs to go over some health questions. These aren't standard yes or no pre-filled form questions. These are inane, unnecessary and highly inappropriate questions prepared especially for me after a thorough study of my records. Questions like "did I eat breakfast this morning?" Now, I know why she asked that. The stupid dental student put a note on my chart requiring that I eat before appointments because I have diabetes. This is because she, being a freaking dental student and not an endocrinologist, is ignorant to the fact that insulins used today don't have the peaks of older insulins and therefore do not require meals. I ignored it at the time not wanting to educate her on subjects that have nothing to do with her field of study. But now I'm faced with dietary interrogation at every appointment.

Even better, the idiot dental hygiene student follows up my "yes" with "what time?" What the fuck is your problem? I ate breakfast--what the hell does the time matter? Then she asks if I've taken my insulin. Of course, asshat. I know how to manage my diabetes. Who put you in charge of it? How much insulin and what time? Seriously--what the fuck does this have to do with getting my teeth cleaned? How would she know what an appropriate dosage of insulin is? Then she asks if I've taken my thyroid medication. OK, enough is enough. There are certain conditions--heart murmurs specifically--that require pre-medication (antibiotics) before treatment. People who require pre-medication generally have that marked in big red letters on their dental records. I can understand checking to make sure these people have taken the appropriate medication. But thyroid meds? What's next? An inquiry as to whether or not I took my vitamins? Ate all my vegetables?

After all the bullshit between the billing snafu and the idiotic questioning (Note to dental hygiene moron: You are not on Grey's Anatomy. Your faculty supervisor isn't going to be all impressed and sleep with you like Preston Burke and Cristina Yang. Get over yourself! You're a freaking hygiene student which means you weren't smart enough to be a dental student. And the dental students are dental students 'cuz they're not smart enough to get into med school! If you were in med school, you might have the right to dive that deep into my medical history. But I wasn't there to have you diagnose me, just clean my freaking teeth!), we ended up with TEN minutes to do the cleaning. She got 1/3 of my teeth scraped before I booked out of there for my dermatology appointment.

Un-fucking-believable the incompetence, unprofessionalism and complete waste of time. For which I was charged $45. Had the dental student properly notified me of the $20 charge at the time it was INCURRED, that would have spared me 45 minutes of agonizing bullshit. And had the moronic dental hygiene student realized I had just undergone an extensive examination, the only question necessary to ask would have been, "Has there been any change in your health since your last visit?" It is not her job to monitor my diabetes control, medication dosages or even my freaking blood pressure (which was sky high not surprisingly...How many of you get your blood pressure taken at the freaking DENTIST?!!!).

It's taken almost 24 hours to calm down--and now I'm getting riled up again just typing this.

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!!!!

The Mysteries of Pittsburgh by Michael Chabon

I'd read and loved Michael Chabon's The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and I grew up in Pittsburgh so I thought this would be a slamdunk. Like one of Chabon's other novel Wonder Boys, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh focuses its story on three male characters--one straight and messed up, one gay and messed up and one who's not quite sure--and messed up. Both Wonder Boys (which admittedly I haven't READ, but instead watched the wonderful movie version) and Mysteries tell their stories via one main protagonist. The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, however, focuses on two main characters and switches back and forth between their different points of view.

The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is Chabon's first novel and is littered with thematic elements that will appear in both Kavalier and Clay and Wonder Boys: male friendships, homosexuality, fractured families, tortured artists, indecision and finally, growing up and getting on with it. Both Mysteries and Wonder Boys are set in Pittsburgh (which becomes a character in and of itself) where Chabon earned his undergraduate degree. The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay is set in New York City.

Chabon, now married with four children, was quoted in the New York Review of Books about The Mysteries of Pittsburgh saying:

I had just been through, in the years preceding my decampment for the West, a pair of summers that had rattled my nerves and rocked my soul and shook my sense of self - but in a good way. I had drunk a lot, and smoked a lot, and listened to a ton of great music, and talked way too much about all of those activities, and about talking about those activities. I had slept with one man whom I loved, and learned to love another man so much that it would never have occurred to me to want to sleep with him. I had seen things and gone places in and around Pittsburgh, during those summers, that had shocked the innocent, pale, freckled Fitzgerald who lived in the great blank Minnesota of my heart.

That gives you a sense of the book's essence and its themes. Unfortunately, Chabon's elegy on coming of age and loss of innocence may have been mangled beyond recognition by Marshall Rawson Thurber (Dodgeball) who scripted the adaptation and directs the movie version. A quick peek at the IMDB credits shows the elimination of one of novel's major characters. Of the three male main characters, Thurber has cut it down to only two--and one has been completely changed to take on the missing characteristics of the eliminated character. I found a thoughtful review of the script online and now I'm not sure I want to see the movie. Thankfully, Chabon is doing his own adaptation for the Pulitzer Prize winning The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. Whew!

Charlie Bartlett

When I saw the trailer for this, I thought it looked like Ferris Bueller meets Igby Goes Down (If you've never seen Igby Goes Down, rent it! It stars Kieran Culkin who delivers one of my all time favorite lines: "I'm drowning in assholes!" If that doesn't sum up my life, I don't know what does...)--and it is. As well as a bit of Rushmore and several other classic movies about high school and troubled teens thrown in to boot.

The concept of a kid operating a psychiatry practice out of the boys bathroom (with "patients" talking about their problems ala confessional style via the bathroom stalls...) seemed like a smash hit. Unfortunately, Charlie Bartlett is not a cohesive homage to its more clever predecessors, but a mangled and derivative mess than is far less than the sum of its parts.

Charlie is played by Anton Yelchin--who was terrific as the doomed Zack Mazursky in Alpha Dog. Here, however, he seems to be shamelessly channeling Matthew Broderick's performance of Ferris Bueller. Seriously, I would lay odds that Yelchin watched the John Hughes classic at least 100 times in order to copy the deadpan delivery and staccato and stilted speech patterns of the cocky but not quite to the point of smarmy Ferris. Understandably since it is Charlie's goal to become the Ferris Bueller of his high school--but while Ferris was cool and hip without effort, Charlie must resort to pimping out pharmaceuticals to attain his popularity. Or notoriety. They're interchangeable these days (See Hilton, Paris).

Or maybe it was writer Gustin Nash who had the Ferris Bueller obsession. His screenplay straddles the line between quirky comedy and poignant teen drama. There are some moments that are quite touching and authentic, but unfortunately they get lost in the incredible silliness. For example, when Charlie is expelled from his latest private school his mother announces he'll attend public school. This is fine with Charlie, but he wants to take the bus because he doubts the other kids will arrive in a chauffeur-driven limo. A correct assumption--but why then have him stand and wait for the bus dressed in his prep school jacket and carrying an attaché case? Oh, wait--that's what Max Fischer did in Rushmore. But while Max was motivated by his abiding and undying love for his prep school, Charlie's motives aren't quite clear. Unless he wanted to have his facial features rearranged by the school bully.

Hope Davis does what she can with her role as Charlie's childlike mother--but she doesn't have much to work with. Robert Downey Jr. rises above the material giving his usual layered performance as a high school principal whose ax to grind with Charlie may have little to do with the teen usurping his authority and more to do with his own loathing of his life and his job. It is disconcerting, however, to see Downey playing a character numbing his pain with alcohol--given his real life problems in the substance abuse area. A bit too close to home at times...

Anyway, the story lacks focus or narrative drive and meanders along to its inevitable feel good conclusion. A pity. But rather than waste your time on a second rate version of some great movies--rent the originals. Rushmore, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Igby Goes Down. Much better choices...

If I Ran the Oscars...

Apparently not only did people NOT see many of the films nominated for Oscars this year, they didn't bother to watch the show either. According to an Associated Press report the 80th Academy Awards presentation may end up being the least watched broadcast in history. Surprising since we were lacking in self-congratulatory lovefests this year what with the scrapping of the Golden Globes due to the WGA strike. One would have thought people would flock to fawn over celebrities and their couture. But they didn't.

Why is that? Well, the lack of mainstream nominees may be part of the problem. Critical favorites like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men and Michael Clayton fared poorly at the box office (although everyone should really check out the last two--they were, in my opinion, two of the best movies of 2007!). But I don't think that's it. I think the problem boils down to two things:

1. The show is too freaking LONG!!! Seriously, even with acceptance speech time constraints and the revolving door of guest presenters, four hours is a long time for anyone to sit through an awards show. On the east coast, viewers don't get to bed until midnight--much too late on a "school night." While I deeply admire all the talent that goes into producing a film, the fact of the matter is that the average TV viewer really doesn't give a flying @#$% about sound mixing or art direction. Or best short or foreign film for that matter. The work should be recognized and honored, but perhaps not part of the televised show. Give the awards out the day before and then get all the winners up on stage for a televised big group round of applause.

Pare down the telecast to the more known entities: Best Film, Best Director, Best Actor/Actress, Best Supporting Actor/Actress, Best Original/Adapted Screenplay, Best Score/Song. Ten awards, two hours. It could be done...and with time to spare for acceptance speeches as well!

2. Reinstate the element of surprise! The lack of audience could be attributed to award show fatigue--you've got the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, the DGA Awards, the WGA Awards, Critics Awards, etc. But it's not the excessive amount of awards, but the fact that they eliminate most of the "Who's gonna win?" excitement from the Oscars. Once SAG has given its Best Supporting Actor prize to Javier Bardem, it's pretty much a sure bet that his fellow actors in the Academy will also vote for him to take the Oscar. We all knew the Coen Brothers would win for Screenplay and Director--prior to the Oscars they won the awards with the WGA and DGA. Really, other than the below-the-line awards that most viewers snooze through, the only real mystery was which nominee would win Best Film.

Maybe the solution is for the WGA, DGA and SAG to hold their award ceremonies AFTER the Oscars. It would be anticlimatic for sure--but it's worse to have the vaunted Academy Awards be merely a footnote in my opinion.

Oscar Recap - How my Picks Did

Of course I had my favorites for Oscar winners--let's see how I did:

Best Picture - I was rooting for No Country for Old Men and it WON!!! Thank God the voters didn't do something stupid and award the prize to freaking Juno!

Best Director - I wanted to see the Coen Brothers win and they did! Hurrah!

Best Actor - I thought Johnny Depp deserved to win for his amazing work in Sweeney Todd but the Oscar voters picked Daniel Day Lewis for the overwrought There Will Be Blood. And he didn't even have to sing!

Best Actress - I wasn't too invested in this one. My pick was the consistently excellent Laura Linney for her role in The Savages, but the award went to Marion Cotillard for her performance of Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose.

Best Supporting Actor - I really wanted to see this go to Tom Wilkinson, but instead Javier Bardem got the trophy. I felt his turn in No Country for Old Men was perhaps one of the creepiest villains EVER (even more so than Hopkin's Hannibal Lector), but 50% of that was the godawful HAIR. The only thing more disappointing to me than Wilkinson's loss, was the fact that Jeff Daniels wasn't even nominated for his incredible performance in The Lookout.

Best Supporting Actress - My money was on Saoirse Ronan from Atonement but the statue went to Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton. I have no problem with that.

Best Adapted Screenplay - I picked the Coen Brothers for No Country for Old Men and that's who won! Whoohoo!

Best Original Screenplay - My choice was Tony Gilroy for Michael Clayton but the stupid Oscar voters awarded the prize to the highly hyped Diablo Cody and her overrated screenplay Juno. Blech!

Best Art Direction - I loved the whole look of Sweeney Todd and, lo and behold--Oscar voters agreed with me! Yay!

Best Cinematography - Roger Deakins who was nominated TWICE in this category for his fabulous work on both No Country for Old Men and The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford was ROBBED in my opinion. He should have won his beautifully original work in Assassination but instead the Oscar went to Robert Elswitt for the overrated There Will Be Blood. Grrrrr!

Best Costumes - This one was meant for Elizabeth: The Golden Age and thank heavens Alexandra Byrne won for her incredibly luscious costumes.

Best Documentary - My pick was Michael Moore and Sicko--but then again that's the only nominee I'd seen. Taxi to the Dark Side won the Oscar.

Best Editing - My pick, The Bourne Ultimatum, WON!

Best Makeup - My choice of the nominated films (for some reason, Sweeney Todd was excluded) was Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, but the Oscar went to Ve Neill and Martin Samuel for their work on La Vie En Rose.

Best Score - I was rooting for Dario Marianelli's sweeping score for Atonement and he was the winner!

Best Original Song - With three noms for Enchanted, you would have thought Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz would have been a sure thing. My pick was their Happy Working Song, but the Oscar went to Falling Slowly from the movie Once. Bummer...

Sound Editing/Sound Mixing - Again I was rooting for the fabulous action movie The Bourne Ultimatum and again the Oscar voters agreed and awarded the statue to Karen Baker Landers and Per Hallberg for Sound Editing and Scott Millan, David Parker and Kirk Francis for Sound Mixing.

I believe that means The Bourne Ultimatum won every Oscar it was nominated for?

Visual Effects - I picked Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End but the award went to Michael Fink, Bill Westenhofer, Ben Morris and Trevor Wood for the largely ignored Golden Compass.

So 9 of my 19 picks were winners. I'm only really upset about four of my picks (Best Actor, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay and Cinematography) losing. Oh well--there's always next year!

Be Kind Rewind

This film has been getting mixed, but generally positive, reviews. With the dearth of decent movies out right now and an overwhelming amount of dreck, it's been a while since I've been in the theater. So I decided to chance Michel Gondry's latest indie creation (he wrote and directed this film as well as The Science of Sleep and directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) starring Jack Black and Mos Def.

I was not disappointed.

It is sweet, funny and genuinely touching--and sports numerous whimsical visual touches that are Gondry's trademark. The clever premise--Jack Black's off-the-wall character of Jerry gets magnetized and accidentally erases all the tapes in Mr. Fletcher's (Danny Glover) hole-in-the-wall video rental store causing Mike (Mos Def) to enlist Jerry and other locals to film their own twisted re-enactments of the originals--is wacky but accessible. Who didn't grow up putting on shows, singing songs into a tape recorder, creating whole worlds out of construction paper and cardboard boxes?

But more than just an homage to the individual creative spirit, Gondry salutes the power of the story and the storytellers. Especially in the medium of film, storytelling becomes a collective and collaborative process--both in its production and the experience of viewing it. Not only is Gondry able to capture the magic that is telling a story, but he charmingly conveys how a story told with passion and conviction can enchant even the most disillusioned of audiences. It is a cry out against today's corporate movie-making process to offer something more than the usual slick, formulaic studio film and instead find ways to truly enchant and engage the audience. Because creativity begets creativity--and as humans, we crave to be informed, enlightened and entertained.

To Sleep, Perchance to Dream...

I had a dream last night. No, not the awe-inspiring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. kind. My dreams are more of the mondo-bizarro David Lynch variety. Last night, I dreamt that I was hanging out with Jim Halpert (aka John Krasinski) from The Office. We were on some sort of pier on a waterfront and it was getting a little chilly. This was because we were both wearing just pajamas. So Jim suggested we sit on a bench and suddenly pulled out this big, green blanket for us to huddle under. I was leaning up against his shoulder, so the blanket practically covered me up entirely.

Then, who should appear but Pam Beesly (Jenna Fischer)! She spotted Jim and walked up to us, chatting in a friendly way. I kept as still as possible hoping she wouldn't spot me underneath the blanket and get the wrong idea. I mean who could misinterpret a completely platonic-ness of two people in pajamas huddled together under a blanket on a bench? But she saw my feet and was a bit miffed to say the least. I whispered to Jim to tell her I was a male buddy who was cowering under the blanket, hiding because I was dressed in drag for some hazing ritual. I can't believe she bought it!

Obviously, one doesn't need to be schooled in the art of dream interpretation to figure out this dream. I'm either anxiously awaiting the return of one of my favorite shows (April 10th!), or I seriously need to get a life.

Or both.

For what it's worth: I would never come between the world's cutest couple--long live Pam and Jim! Or as Kevin would put it: "PB and J." I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with them--as well as the love triangles of Angela, Andy and Dwight and Kelly, Darryl and Ryan. Not to mention Michael and Jan and the rest of the crew. Only 48 more days!

LOST - Eggtown

More revelations in last night's episode of LOST--but the one question I had was: Why was it named "Eggtown"? It did start with John Locke cooking up the "last two eggs" for captive Ben's breakfast. Despite being beat up and locked up, Ben remains uncowed--taunting John by saying, "Just like old times--except I'm locked in a different room and you're more lost than you ever were."

According to Lostpedia, the "Eggtown" reference "is a pejorative term that refers to the days of bartering, during the Great Depression. A traveling salesman would have to barter his candy or tobacco or shoelaces for different commodities. A poor exchange would be for eggs, a relatively common item that is also highly perishable." In other words, it's a bad deal. Perhaps a reference to the bargain the Oceanic Six made?

Speaking of references, during the show Hurley watches a video of Xanudu, the title of which is also a Samuel Coleridge Taylor poem about a tropical paradise.

I liked the line Locke said to Ben when he tossed aside the book John brought saying he'd already read it: "You might catch something you missed the second time around." That's exactly how I feel watching the re-airing of the previous week's episodes with the "enhanced" subtitling. But the best line of the night was again from Hurley when Kate tricks him into revealing Miles' location: "You just totally Scooby Doo'd me, didn't ya?"

Answers and yet new questions from this episode:

1. Miles blackmails Ben saying he'll tell his people Ben is dead in exchange for $3.2 million dollars. Ben has access to $3.2 million? That's a lot of cash... Miles asks Ben, "Do you know who I work for?" Who DOES Miles work for?

2. When Sun says she wants to raise her baby in Korea and Jin corrects her saying "our baby," she doesn't correct herself. Could it be she doesn't believe the baby is Jin's?

3. Locke tells Miles, "I'm responsible for the well-being of this island," and yet has serious doubts about his own leadership abilities. Ben is still able to push his buttons...

4. Daniel Faraday has memories issues. Could this be the reason for the caretaker?

5. Kate is tried for her crimes when she gets back to civilization, but gets off when her mother refuses to testify against her. She is given 10 years probation--which means she cannot leave the state, much less return to the island.

6. When Jack testifies in Kate's defense, it appears part of the lie being perpetuated by the Oceanic Six is that only eight survived the crash and two of them died. And Kate was the big hero saving everyone. Painting Kate as the hero may have been a premeditated plan knowing what she faced upon her return.

7. The "him" that Kate referred to when she said she needed to get back was her son. Actually, not HER son, but Claire's son Aaron. If Kate has Aaron, then Claire must be dead. There's no way she'd let her baby leave the island without her. I doubt Aaron counts as one of the six, since he wouldn't be on the plane manifest as a passenger. So who are the other two? And who is being referred to as part of the "eight" survivors in addition to the Oceanic Six?

8. Jack doesn't want to see Aaron. Does he know Aaron is his nephew? Did he have something to do with Claire's death? Is this why Hurley feels guilty about going with Locke vs. Jack?

9. Sayid, Frank, Desmond and Naomi's body haven't made it back to the freighter even though they left a day earlier.

10. What's up with Minkowski?

For more info, check out the recap posted at Lostpedia, the screencaps at Lost Easter Eggs and Liz Kelly and Jen Chaney's "Dueling Analyses" at Celebritology.

Oscar Suite Swag

I got to tag along with my friend Stevie today to check out some of the suites set up to promote Oscar week. I bet you're thinking--"Wow, how glamorous! How cool!" I bet you're turning green with envy at the fabulous haul of swag that I'm going to gloat about.

I bet y'all had a much more productive four hours of your time...

Let's do the math: Take market value of swag minus usability of swag and divide by time spent plus parking costs and--well, four hours plus $12 for parking all for THREE items of swag is not time well invested. Oh well...

The first suite was at the Beverly Hills Hilton which charges like $90 an hour for parking. Kidding. It's $6 for the first hour and $4 for each additional. I was barely there for more than an hour, but ended up shelling out $10. Sheesh. Although I didn't get much booty, I have to say that the rep for Opalescence, a teeth-whitening system was by far the nicest and most generous. She loaded Stevie and me up with a full-sized kit (Melon for me, Mint for Stevie), a sample of their toothpaste and samples of the alternate flavors (the kits come in Melon, Peach and Mint).

And speaking of flavors, plenty was provided by Dallmann Confections--maker of elegant and delicate gourmet chocolates. Owner Isabella Valencia created a special nine piece box in honor of the Oscars to be given to red carpet celebs. In it there's a dark chocolate truffle laced with buttery caramel and a touch of sea salt inspired by Sweeney Todd, a heart-shaped white chocolate truffle with a layer of vanilla ganache followed by a layer of boysenberry to embody the offbeat romance of Juno while the regal Elizabeth was captured by a 65% Venezuelan chocolate with a hint of bourbon vanilla garnished with real gold dust.

Stevie did a video interview of Valerie Waters, personal trainer to the stars. Waters, who has helped celebrities like Jennifer Garner and Kate Beckinsdale get camera ready, has written a book titled Red Carpet Ready which details a six-week program to reshape your body. In addition to her diet and exercise program, Valerie is teaming with CUUR, a green tea based supplement that helps boost metabolism. In addition to the teeth whitening kit and a box of chocolates, I got a box of CUUR--so I'll let y'all know in a month if my stubborn flabby midsection disappears, or at least dissipates. Of course, the chocolates won't help with that!

The other two suites offered nothing in the way of swag. Bummer. For what it's worth, Fuji appears to be the official water of the Oscar suites. For more of the inside scoop on behind the scenes of Oscar week, check out L.A. Story for a bunch of podcasts and video interviews and pics and stories.

Not Like a Rhinestone Cowboy

Mamas, don't let your babies
grow up to be cowboys...
Don't let 'em pick guitars or drive them old trucks.
Let 'em be doctors and lawyers and such.

With all due respect to Waylon Jennings, perhaps being a cowboy ain't such a bad idea. As long as you're the Naked Cowboy, who according to this article in today's Washington Post is suing Mars, Inc.--makers of M&Ms--for SIX MILLION DOLLARS!

I'm sure you--like me--are thinking, "Go, Dude!" Power to the little guy vs. the big greedy corporation. Except the Naked Cowboy owns an Escalade, can charge up to $10k for a personal appearance and has a master plan for the future that includes a yacht, private jet and several homes.

Too bad I have such a low tolerance for cold. Obviously, I am in the wrong line of work...

Might See Movies

After an Oscar contender induced bloat of movies followed by the New Year dregs (Jumper? Definitely, Maybe NOT!!!), we're finally seeing some worthwhile contenders for our box office dollars. Here are the possibilities I have on my list:

1. Charlie Bartlett - Opens this weekend and features Robert Downey Jr. and Hope Davis. The trailer looked interesting. I'll probably see it next week.

2. Be Kind Rewind - Michel Gondry's The Science of Sleep looked too weird for my tastes, but this time around he's got Jack Black and a really cute premise. Whether or not it can sustain a 2 hour movie remains to be seen. Also opening this weekend.

3. The Other Boleyn Girl - It looks like they've taken substantial liberties with Philippa Gregory's novel, but since she took major liberties with actual historical facts it's probably a wash. I'll go to see it for the gorgeous costumes. Coming February 29th.

4. Semi Pro - I've mixed feelings about this latest opportunity for Will Ferrell to run around half-naked. I loved Blades of Glory, but loathed Anchorman. Let's hope it's more of the former and less of the latter...

5. Penelope - If this "modern day fairytale" gets great reviews, I might check it out. It looks a bit odd but maybe that's a good thing. Opens February 29th.

6. City of Men - This isn't a "might see," it's a definite "must see." From the producers of City of God--which was one of the best movies I've ever seen. If City of Men is half as good as City of God, it will be twice as good as any other movie out there. Also February 29th

7. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - Well, the sell should be the Oscar-caliber Amy Adams and Frances McDormand, but I'll go see it to drool over cutie patootie Lee Pace. March 7th.

8. Horton Hears a Who! - I know, after the unmitigated disasters that were The Cat in the Hat (Mike Myers) and How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Jim Carrey), you would think Hollywood would hesitate before desecrating yet another Dr. Seuss classic. And this one stars BOTH Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell making one wonder how much overtime they had to pay the set crew after the stars' extensive scenery chewing?

But I've seen the trailer and I'm very hopeful they got it right this time. First off, it's animated ala Ice Age so no creepy makeup effects or overacting since both Carrey and Carrell are merely providing character VOICES. Whew! That's a relief. Seriously, it looks very cute. Coming March 14th.

9. 21 - Based on the true story of six MIT students trained in the art of card counting. Starring Kevin Spacey (It's been a while, Kev! Whatcha been up to?) which means it could be L.A. Confidential or (shudder!) K-Pax.

10. Stop Loss - From the director of Boys Don't Cry this opens March 28th. The trailer looks great and I'd watch anything that features Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

11. Leatherheads - George Clooney and John Krasinski. Need I say more? Opens April 4th.

12. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - I've seen the first three installments of the franchise, but this one features a much older and creakier Harrison Ford. If the reviews are good, I'll go check it out. Opens May 23rd.

13. You Don't Mess with Zohan - Adam Sandler starring in a script he co-wrote with Judd Apatow which is directed by Richie Brockelman--I mean Dennis Dugan! It could be really funny...Fingers crossed!

14. The Happening - I'm probably one of the few people who has actually seen and liked all of M. Night Shyamalan's post-The Sixth Sense offerings. With the exception of The Village. Yes, I really dug Unbreakable and was even charmed by Lady in the Water. Love him or hate him you have to give him credit for following his own unique vision. I think he'd do a bit better with a co-writer--especially on dialogue. And if he limited his film acting to small cameos and not supporting roles. Opens June 13th.

15. Get Smart - The casting of Steve Carrell in the role made famous by Don Adams was brilliant. The casting of Anne Hathaway as Agent 99--dubious. I hope it's great. Will wait for the reviews. June 20th.

16. Hancock - Will Smith plays a less than squeaky clean superhero. You've got to hand it to Smith--he really knows how to pick a project! The trailer looked hysterical--it opens July 4th.