Guest Columnist: Gianna's review of Azur & Asmar - Indescribably Gorgeous

French animator Michael Ocelot’s latest film Azur & Asmar is a film that every animation buff should seek out, filled with some of the most beautiful and intricate animation we’ve seen in a long-time.

Azur’s Middle-Eastern nurse raises him alongside her own son Asmar. Treated as brothers, she regales the young boys with a story about the Djin fairy, imprisoned in a country across the sea and who awaits a prince who will free her from plight. As the boys grow-up Azur’s father decides to separate them, sending Azur off to school and Asmar and his mother back to their own country. When Azur reaches adulthood, he decides to cross the sea on a quest to free the Djin fairy. He is eventually reunited with Asmar and his mother and the two young men join together in their quest.

Composed of vibrant jewel tones, and intricate backgrounds Azur & Asmar is a joy to watch. The story is told simply and devoid of the usual American conventions of creating snappy characters and pop-culture references. Ocelot’s stunning animation actually becomes a sort of narrator and washes over the viewer. Some viewer’s may be put off by the odd computer animation techniques. Much more attention and detail is given to the backgrounds, than actual character animation. And while the physical details of the character’s faces and bodies are nicely achieved, the clothing for the characters is flat and block-y.

The film has had an extremely limited theatrical release, and will be very unlikely that you can go to your local multiplex and see it. However, it has been released on DVD recently and is worth seeking out. If you are lucky enough to encounter a movie theater that is showing it-GO! You won’t be disappointed.

How to Craft a Perfect Villain

This past month, Entertainment Weekly came out with their list of Best Pop Culture villains. There was the usual collection of good, bad and "huh?" choices but it got me to thinking... what makes a good villain? As with any discussions of villains, my thoughts immediately turn to my gold standard of movie villainy: Hans Gruber. Now old Hans did make EW's list, but not nearly as high as he should have. Why is he my favorite movie villain? The answer is as easy as it is indefinable: He's cool!


I firmly believe the best villains are the ones you love to hate. My villains have to have some style, some panache, and hopefully a slight sense of humor. Take my favorite Disney villains: you've got Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, who is pure evil - she has a bad ass costume, an evil laugh, hell - she even has horns! Then there's Ursula from The Little Mermaid who has nothing if not presence. If you've created your villain correctly, your audience should be at least half-hoping that they succeed. (Unfortunately, Thomas Harris took this a little far and gave us the extremely ill-conceived Hannibal. Ugh!)


A calm, cool and collected presence helps, too. Other-the-top villainy doesn't work for me. I like Anton Chigurgh a lot better than Jack Torrence. Nurse Ratched... The Operative from Serenity ... Hannibal Lecter... these are people whose feathers don't ruffle easily and it makes them seem downright unbeatable. What more can you want in a villain?


Villains are also best when they don't have overly complicated motivations. Which was scarier, the original "Jaws" or "Jaws 4... this time it's personal" where Jaws' mother went on a revenge rampage? OK, maybe that's not a fair comparison, I mean who likes anything about Jaws 4, but let me ask you this: which is the better Batman villain, the bad ass Joker or Mr. Freeze, who has to be bad in order to save his dying wife? Or the Penguin who was horribly abused and abandoned as a child? The less you know about your villain's back story, the better. I'll take my villains' motives like Nicky Holiday's in The Great Muppet Caper: "Why am I doing this? I'm a villain! It's pure and simple." How can you argue with that?


So here's my advice: Don't work so hard at making your villain scary, or brutal, or "complicated," just make them memorable, stylish, and cool. They may not win, but everyone will be secretly wishing they did!

Netflix Fridays: What Are We Watching Now?

How has another week gone by already? And why - at the same time - does it seem as if it was 12 weeks long? I guess I'll chalk it up to the joys of parenting and home ownership... oh, and being a working stooge! Never a dull moment. Gotta figure out how to become independently wealthy and retire to that island... Well, until that happens, here's what we're looking at watching this weekend:

The Wrestler - OK, I wasn't thrilled with The Reader and while Doubt was better that I had expected, it won't be making its way into my permanent collection any time soon. Here's the next big prestige picture of 2008 to make it's way to our home. We'll see how it fares. Part of me wants to be unimpressed because I just want Mickey Rourke, his tiny dogs, and his badly-in-need-of-being-washed hair to go away. But I think a bigger part of me just wants to be blown away by something truly good. We'll see..



John Adams: Disc 3 - Well, not to give anything away here, but he becomes President! Didn't see THAT coming! We'll have to see how things work out for him and his sullen sons... that John Quincy, nothing good is going to come of him, I guarantee it!





The Ultimate Carson Collection: Volume One - Sean was always a big Johnny Carson fan. I was more of a Letterman chick. To me, Carson was just some old guy telling lame jokes about Madonna and a bunch of young people he probably didn't even know anything about. Well, I was 12, and he was getting toward the end of his career. So we are exploring some of Johnny's "greatest hits" and I'm sure this will bring me around to appreciating the man for how funny he truly was.

But I still reserve the right to like Letterman better.

Guest Columnist: Gianna's top 100 Movies any Film Buff Should See, Pt. 2

Here is the next 10 films on Gianna's list of films recommended for tru film buffs. I've only seen 4 of these 10, but you know - the deck is sort of stacked in Gianna's favor here.
---

Commitments (1991, Dir: Alan Parker, Wr: Dick Clement) The Commitments is just one of those perfect little films. From the writing, to casting, to directing everything just clicks. Say it with me now- ‘I’m Black and I’m Proud!’

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (1989, Dir: Peter Greenway, Wr: Peter Greenway) Highly stylized, but compelling from beginning to end. It’s not a pleasant film to watch by any means, but the ending pays off in a big way.

Crumb (1994 Dir: Terry Zwigoff)-A great documentary about the life and career of comic artist Robert Crumb. Zwigoff examines not just Crumb’s amazing career, but his fully bizarre family as well. It’s fascinating and compelling and stays with you long after you see it.

Dark Crystal (1982, Dir: Jim Henson & Frank Oz, Wr: Jim Henson & David Odell) A thoroughly unappreciated film in its day and even now. The sheer artistry that this film demands is amazing. Though the screenplay is not especially strong, the artistic achievement of the film far out weighs it.

The Devil’s Backbone (2001, Dir: Guillermo del Toro, Wr: Guillermo del Toro)-A great creepy, atmospheric, ghost story. In an age where most Americans equate horror with torture porn, this wonderful gem is superior to anything Eli Roth is vomiting out.

Existenz (1999, Dir: David Cronenberg, Wr: David Cronenberg)-If there’s such a thing as an intellectual popcorn movie, Existenz falls into that category. Essentially written off as an imitator to The Matrix, Existenz delivers a far more satisfying ride. (Jami's note: That's not too hard in my book!)

Eyes Without a Face (1960, Dir: Georges Franju, Wr: Jean Redon, Pierre Boileau)-A completely disturbing horror picture. Considered a precursor to Psycho, Eyes Without a Face has one of the most haunting final scenes I’ve seen put to film.

Fantastic Planet (1960, Dir: Rene Laloux, Wr: Roland Topor)-This French animated Sci-Fi adventure is beautifully animated and completely trippy. One of the early films to make the case that animation is not just for children.

Forbidden Games (1952, Dir: Rene Clement, Wr: Jean Aurenche) An amazing little film about the effects of war and death from a child’s point of view. The film touchingly examines the way children deal with the realities of death and its religious rituals.

Girl Crazy (1943, Dir: Busby Berkley, Wr: Guy Boltan & Jack McGowan) There’s a reason Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musicals were so damn popular-They’re FREAKIN' ADORABLE! Just about any of their films are fine to watch-I picked this one, because it was the only one that didn’t feature a minstrel show.

Movies & Sports Sell Out

I recently got into a debate with my brother, Tom (can you imagine it?) about what new stadiums like Citifield reflect about the state of sports. I contended that Citifield represents everything that is wrong with professional sports today. It’s more about making money than it is about playing the game. Tom contended that the Mets’ parent company has every right to make money and to that ends, it’s all good. He’s right to a point (whether any inanimate object actually has rights, is another debate). But the debate brought up an interesting parallel of the world of sports to the world of film. Tom said that the sate of Hollywood was just as bad. And ya know, he’s kinda right. To a point.

You see, Transformers II is coming out this summer. That says it all right there. It seems that when making money becomes the focus, the art suffers just as much as the sport suffers. Both art and sports are about the doing. And they are about doing for doing’s sake. When it’s about money, you get Michael Bay and Nic Cage movies and you get MLB, NBA and NFL. Yes, there is entertainment value (of varying degrees) but it becomes more about product endorsements, high salaries, action figures and video games. It becomes more about the distractions from the game/movie than about the actual game/movie itself.

There is a level of making money on artistic endeavors like the Weinstein Company, Sony Classics or Focus Features. They make prestigious pictures that make a comparatively meager amount of money. This is kind of like minor league ball. It’s still a pure game but there’s still a commercial value to it ("Hit the bull and get a free steak").

Then you have the pick-up game in the park. The Whiffle Ball game in the back yard. Just people playing a game to play the game – that’s kinda how Kevin Smith made Clerks. They are playing for the pure joy of the game. Yes, they want to excel and be their best. But the most they hope to get for their effort is bragging rights.

I, personally, do not follow sports. I was close to being a die-hard Met fan, until they traded away their 1986 team before the 1987 season. I remember watching the ’86 series like it was yesterday. That, to me, was baseball at its greatest: you were truly on the edge of your seat as the pitcher and the batter were steeped in battle, flinching at every swing and literally jumping for joy when the fated ball passed through Buckner’s legs.

I was hooked. I couldn’t wait for the next season to start. Then the Mets traded Lenny Dykstra. That pissed me off. And it’s not about whether they made a good trade or bad trade. (You can discuss the merits of their trades with the Mad Dog. I don’t care.) It just made me realize that to root for the 1987 Mets would basically be rooting for a trademarked logo, not the group of individuals who made up a championship team. Suddenly, I didn’t care.

Going to a game at Citifield is less about enjoying a game and more about having the Heritage Pork Porchetta and a choice of six red wines. All this hoo-ha is taking the focus away from the experience of the game itself. People are coming to see the park more than they are coming to see a baseball game. Hell, the name, Citifield, is meant to make you think of a bank instead of a ball park. Plus, higher ticket prices: the addition of more luxury suites that rent for $250,000 - $500,000 each per season, an average ticket price of $170 for the lower level seats, make the game less accessible to the average Joe-lunch-pail. Sure, if the Mets are playing, I root for them (especially when they’re playing the Yankees). But ask me one of the players name and it’s like you’re asking Tom to highlight the mise-en-scene in a Kurosawa flick.

Which brings me to the movie side of it all. Most people say that movies are worse than ever. This is somewhat true. And I say somewhat because there are great movies still being made: Michael Clayton, The Departed, Slumdog Millionaire, the Harry Potter movies. But the big difference is that studios have learned that movies don’t have to be good to make money. As a matter of fact, it can be a detriment. So, they put the big budgets behind pop-corn movies and crap that is faster and furious-er.

Again, there’s a lot of great pop-corn movies: Spider-Man I & II, The Dark Knight, the Harry Potter movies for instance. But there is a glutton of crap movies: The Hulk, the new Star Wars movies, anything with Shia LaBeouf, Daredevil, any of the “insert-genre-here Movie” movies (Scary Movie, Date Movie, Super-Hero movie, etc.) of course: Transformers I & II (I know the second has not come out yet, but if that is a good movie, I will eat a plate of dog crap in Macy’s window).

But even the good pop-corn movies are not exactly the most artistic endeavors. They loose a lot of purity, especially when they are focus-grouped to death. These movies are not made for the love of making movies, they are for the love of a paycheck.

And that is what is wrong with professional sports. It is not being played for the love of the game. Don’t get me wrong, the people who are talented enough to make it to the majors love the game. That’s just not their motive for playing any more. I’m sure Toby McGuire didn’t sign up for Spider-Man 4 because of his love of films. No, he did it for the big, fat paycheck.

Now, take a movie like 2005’s Good Night, and Good Luck. When George Clooney made that film, he did not expect to rake in $100,000,000 at the box office. Which is a good thing, because he would have gone postal over its $31,000,000 gross. Instead, Clooney had something to say. And through is knowledge of film, he said it better than anyone could have. He crafted an excellent, classic movie that said something because that’s what he set out to do. Not to make a boatload of money.

The same year, Star Wars Episode 3 came out and made $380,000,000 domestically. Now, which movie was better?

Take Slumdog Millionaire. This movie was made thinking that no one would even buy it. Talk about not being in it for the paycheck. But this gave Danny Boyle incredible freedom to make a great movie without having to worry how it would play in Peoria. Boyle made that movie for the pure love of it. He did it for the doing of it. Like playing baseball in the park and diving into second. The only motivation to dive is the almost-artistic experience of doing through competition.

When films are made for the money-making aspect, the joy and soul starts to get sucked out. Look at what happened to Disney movies. Disney reached a point where you could simply imagine people sitting in a board room saying that singing gargoyles would make a marketable addition to both the movie and the accompanying Happy Meal.

So, what is wrong with Sports today is very much the same thing as what is wrong with movies today. Both are endeavors about experience and accomplishment. This is truly the essence of artistic endeavor as much as it is athletic endeavor. But when they become mired in the attempts to capitalize on them, their point shifts from artistic or athletic endeavor to a money-making endeavor. And while people have the right to make money off of art and sport, it lessens the experience if just a little bit.

Netflix Fridays: What Are We Watching Now?

Ok, so I knew we'd get a little back-logged this week and we did, but we did a lot of work this week (and rewarded ourselves with The Office, season 3 which made the perfect thing to have on while painting/ cleaning.) So we're actually between cycles right now.

But we did have the opportunity to see The Reader this week and I have to confess, we were underwhelmed. Kate Winslet did just hit it out of the park every mili-second she was on screen, but the writing felt very under-developed, especially in the first half which left the second half feeling very empty for me. I just didn't have a lot invested in these characters or their relationship, so there wasn't much emotional payoff when it was over. Hopefully Frost/ Nixon and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will fair better... but I'm not holding my breath. What can I say? I'm a very fickle Oscar Nazi this year!

"Romantic" Movies which Piss Me Off

Every once in a while - OK, more often than not - some one's opinion on a film bugs me. Just start praising Clint Eastwood and incur my wrath! Still, I have an especially sore spot for people who willfully misconstrue certain films, turning them into ultra-romantic fantasy pieces instead of the real slaps-in-the-face to romance which they truly are. Here are a few of the top offenders in my book:

My Fair Lady - Let me start with one basic truth: There is nothing sexy about Rex Harrison. That being said, do not get me wrong: I quite love this film. Audrey Hepburn is at her best - despite the fact that her singing vocals are dubbed by Marni Nixon. However, there is NOTHING romantic about this film! When this made AFI's list of top 100 romances, I almost gagged. Even if you think that somehow the relationship that Eliza and Higgins have at the end of the film has deepened into a romantic one, that fact that Higgins never apologizes to Eliza is enough of a reason to put it on the list of worst 100 romances -especially considering Eliza so powerfully tells Higgins what he can do with his diphthongs in the scene before their reconciliation. That fact that she returns and he chides her pisses me off every time.

Forrest Gump - How does anyone find this film romantic? Poor Forrest spends his entire life pining for Jenny who only agrees to marry him when she's dying and needs someone to take care of their son... oh yeah... whom she never told Forrest about! There is never any evidence that Jenny thinks any more of Forrest than of a loyal dog who always seems to be there when you're feeling down. Truly, Jenny may have had a rough start of it, but any other man would have kicked her to the curb long ago. I guess stupid really is as stupid does.

Pretty in Pink - This one even pissed me off as I watched it the theater at the prime age for getting swept up in the angsty teenage love story. This one, too, comes down to a lack of apology situation at the end. Blaine, Molly Ringwald's rich, preppy boyfriend, blows her off come prom because he can't stand up to his jerk-wad friends. However, this film really sets itself apart from the likes of My Fair Lady because not only does Blaine not apologize for his dick-ish behavior, he puts the blame on poor Molly for "not believing in" him. And she takes it!! Harrumph, I say! To make matters worse, in the original cut, Molly told Blaine he was a coward and wound up with the ever faithful Duckie which is a far superior - and satisfying - ending.

Guest Columnist: Gianna picks 100 movies a real film buff should see (10 at a time)

Here's a post from Gianna about some lesser known movies that rel film buffs should see. I mean, if a film buff needs to be told by a list that he or she should really see "Citizen Kane," that person is not really a film buff, right?

In case you're wondering - I've only seen 6 of the first 10. Guess I better get cracking!

-------------

A few weeks back, Yahoo compiled a list of the "100 Films to See Before You Die." Many on that list were the same pool of films on every ‘Must See’ list: Godfather 1 & 2, Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, It’s a Wonderful Life - you know the drill. I decided to compile my own list of films that you should see. Some of these films are brilliant, some are good, some are flawed but interesting but all are worth checking out. I came up with 60 films that tend to fall in the ‘ugly stepchild’ category. They are in alphabetical order and will come in installements of 10. Here is the first group:

Age of Innocence-(1993, Dir: Martin Scorsese, Wr: Jay Cocks) I am at a loss as to why this film doesn’t have a bigger following. Even period drama fiends tend to pass this one by and they shouldn’t. Age of Innocence is a gorgeously shot, lush romantic picture that gives you a glimpse of Scorsese’s wonderful range as a director. (Jami's note....yes, "Range." Let's see Clint Eastwood make this picture!)

Auntie Mame-(1958, Dir: Morton DaCosta, Wr: Betty Comden & Adolph Green) One of the two Rosiland Russell films on my list. It’s a shame that some fantastic actors get forgotten by time. Russell was a brilliant comic actor and Auntie Mame features her best performance. I’ve watched it numerous times and each time I see new details in her performance.

Bedazzled-(1967, Dir: Stanley Donen, Wr: Peter Cook & Dudley Moore) This adorable little comedy features the great comedy team of Dudley Moore and Peter Cook. A reworking of the Faust legend, it is a hysterical, if dated, little comedy.

Bob Roberts (1992, Dir: Tim Robbins, Wr: Tim Robbins) This frighteningly funny first effort from Robbins, is a great indictment of our political system. Though we are all famously aware of Robbins’s own political leanings, I’ve watched this film with conservatives and liberals who both enjoyed it.

Breaking Away (1979, Dir: Peter Yates, Wr: Steve Tesich) This is what I call a perfectly charming movie and those of you who have seen it are probably going ‘Oh yes! I love that movie!’ Wonderful little flick on defining your own path in life, with a fantastic cast.

Champagne for Caesar (1950 Dir: Richard Whorf, Wr: Fred Brady & Hans Jacoby) A forgotten little comedy, it features one of the rare comic performance by Master-of-Horror Vincent Price. Price plays the president of a soap company that sponsors a popular game show. Know-it-All Ronald Coleman, who is turned down for a job at said soap company (for being too smart), decides to go on the game show and take the company for all it’s worth. A true lost gem.

Christmas in Connecticut (1945, Dir: Peter Godfrey, Wr: Lionel Hauser & Adele Commanding) Next Christmas, skip one of your numerous viewings of It’s a Wonderful Life, Christmas Story or Elf and pop this wonderful film in the player. A rather neglected charming Christmas film, it features the wonderful (and also somewhat forgotten) Barbara Stanwyck, as a Martha Steawart-esque columnist, who doesn’t have a Martha Stewart-y bone in her body. (Jami's note: do NOT skip watching It's a Wonderful Life, Elf, or A Christmas Story. Maybe just add this one to the rotation!)

Chocolate War-(1988 Dir: Keith Gordon, Wr: Keith Gordon) This wonderful adaptation of Robert Cormier’s fantastic young-adult novel, was the antithesis of the hip John Hughes-y teen flicks produced in the 80’s.

City of Lost Children-(1995, Dir: Marc Caro & Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Wr: Gilles Adrien & Jean-Pierre Jeunet) Jeunet & Caro’s trippy visual feast is a must for fantasy fans. The final film of this French directing team is creepy, humorous and visually stunning.

Cluny Brown (1946, Dir: Ernst Lubtisch, Wr: Samuel Hoffenstein & Elizabeth Reinhardt) I’ll admit, this is kind of a mean one to put on the list. It’s yet to receive a DVD release and the VHS has been long out of print. However, if you can catch it on TV you’ll get to see a gem example of the famous ‘Lubtisch Touch’. A hilarious examination of social and sexual labels.

Netflix Fridays: What Are We Watching Now?

OK - we haven't gotten through all our movies this week. What can I say? We've been busy and we watch more network TV these days (catch the season finale of the excellent "Friday Night Lights" tonight if you're looking for a new show to be addicted to. Skip "Dollhouse.") Plus, with Easter is this weekend we will undoubtedly fall further behind with mandated viewings on the "Grail," "Willy Wonka," and "Wizard of Oz" awaiting us. Still we'll do what we can. Here are our two new arrivals:

Vicky Christina Barcelona - I love a good Woody Allen movie. Which is to say, I love about half of Woody Allen movies. I think the last one I really enjoyed was "Match Point," the most un-Woody Allen movie ever to come from Woody Allen. He seems to have found a new muse in Scarlet Johansson (much to my husband's delight!) and we're hoping that this film continues his latest comeback streak.

Doubt - Yep, it's that time of year when we finally get to catch up on our Oscar nominees. First, we get to view Penelope Cruz's supporting Actress-winning turn, then we get to see this multiple-nominee. I was very intrigued to see the play, but I have been less than compelled to see the screen version - despite its stellar cast. It seems like you either love or hate this. We'll let you know. Of course, maybe a story of suspected altar boy molestation is not the best thing for this Catholic couple to be watching on Easter weekend. Hmmmm.... Happy Easter everybody!

A Sleepy Little Movie

The other day, we noticed a link on IMDb about movies that cure insomnia. It’s a list of snooze-fests like “The English Patient” and “Out of Africa.” It should include Blade Runner... but, waddaya gonna do?
But the list got me thinking about a movie that I actually used, on multiple occasions, to induce sleep: Othello.
No, not the super-fun strategy game. But rather the gripping 1952 adaptation of Shakespeare’s Othello starring Orson Welles.
Now, let me state emphatically that this is a wonderful production and it’s done really, really well. From what I’ve seen. Which isn’t much. I’d always tell Jami, “No, it’s really good.”
Let me also say that 99.999% of the time, I sleep fine. Log-like. So I don’t need any home sleep remedies (unless they involve copious amounts of vodka).
On the rare occasion when I couldn’t sleep I put it in my VHS and I was in a deep, drooly sleep within half an hour.
I don’t know what it is about it. Is it the exhaustion of trying to keep up with Shakespearean dialogue? Is it the haunting imagery that lulls me to sleep? I don’t know what it is but I always have a Mary-Hart’s-voice type of reaction to it every single time.
The last time I watched it, I was bound and determined to see the whole movie. I made sure that I had a full night’s sleep the night before. I brewed extra coffee. I sat in an uncomfortable chair. I carbo-loaded the night before. I put myself on a Red Bull I.V. drip. I did everything short of the Clockwork Orange eye-openy-thingies. When I sat down, I was like frickin’ Ricochet Rabbit (bing-boing-boing). And…
Babies don’t sleep that good.
I tried actually watching the movie three times. I used it as a sleep aid at least five times.
When I first bought the movie, I tried watching it and went right out. I didn’t think much of it. "Guess I was more tired than I thought."
The second time made me realize that this is a pattern. It wasn’t me being tired or extra-cozy on the couch. This was some sort of ingrained Pavlovian response.
After realizing this, I decided to hold onto the tape specifically as a sleeping aid. I could have stored it in the medicine cabinet.
Mostly I used the movie when I wanted to take an afternoon nap. When I was tired but not sleepy. I’d pop it in, lie on the couch and snuggle up under a blanket. BAM – visions of Scarlet Johansson & baby oil danced in my head.
But there was a time or two when it was 3:00 am and sleep was eluding me like a Matt Damon Oscar nomination. When I can’t fall asleep, I usually read. When I can’t fall asleep reading, I usually read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. When that doesn’t work, I’d pull out the big guns.
Merk should market this movie.
Recently, in a semi-annual paring down of our movie collection, we got rid of Othello. I think I will come to regret that decision. Yes, it was rare that I “watched” it. But in losing this movie, I have lost my magic elixir. There will be a time, maybe not in the near future, where I’m tossing and turning like a salad spinner convention and I’ll have nothin’.
My safety net for that .001% of the time that I can’t sleep is gone, condemning me to either lying in bed as the seconds slowly slide by, or learning about how I really, really need a Little Giant ladder and I can get one today for only 12 easy installments of…
But for those of you with sleeping problems, put this one on your Netflix queue and give it a whirl. I’m telling ya: Babies don’t sleep this good.

Netflix Fridays: What are We Watching Now?

Ok - It's not so much that I forgot yesterday, but we have had electricians crawling all over our house for the past three days which is just a teensy bit distracting and disorienting. So, anyhow, here goes:


John Adams: Disc 2 - I was surprised how engrossing this mini-series really was - especially as a reflection of our current political climate. The freedom and ferocity of expression by our founding fathers was truly admirable and something we will never see the likes of again. As with everything which is politically thought-provoking, I am now depressed.






Dr. Katz - The Complete Series: Disc 6 - Still freaking funny.




Due South: Disc One - This was a short lived series on CBS in the late 90s which was regarded as a bit of a rip-off of Northern Exposure, though it garnered a lot of critical praise. What really intrigues us is the lead actor, though. Paul Gross, from the hilarious Canadian series "Slings & Arrows" plays a Canadian Mountie who moves to Chicago and teams up with an American Detective and has a whole bunch of wacky crime-fighting capers. One thing we're sure of, no mater what the quality of the show is, Gross will undoubtedly give an amazing performance. When we saw "Slings & Arrows," we immediately sought out anything else this guy had ever done. You know that's a good sign.