Gentle readers (or otherwise),
I am finishing a nearly weeklong stint in San Francisco, my first trip to the City by the Bay. I've found it a wonderful city, one I think I'd return to if given the choice (last summer's adventure in Madrid, not so much). There were lots of good places to eat, it was easy to get around in, we got lucky with the weather (warm and dry, in the low 60s), and much to see (Golden Gate Park and the ocean, where a novice surfer tried to drown near where we were yesterday makes for a good story).
As for today's movie review -- The Rabbi's Cat. It's a French film, thus subtitled, and animated. The animation was hand done (at least one hopes so), which adds to the movie's charm.
Critics are giving it a score like 93 on Rotten Tomatoes.
That's high. Although the cat, who has no name, and, of course, talks (it seems due to eating the family's obnoxious parrot) is sometimes funny, it's not clear what we are to make of all the theologizing in the movie. Not surprising from a rabbi's cat, one suspects, but there are series of scenes that question god, the nature of Judaism, the nature of Islam, and a whole series of Judeo myths about Africa. But the movie plays with these, never leaving us with anything but questions...and those from a cat.
It's an amusing use of 90 minutes, and you may leave thinking about the nature of your faith (or your cat's faith -- it's clear from the movie that dogs are faithless), but it's 3 and a half star entertainment, at best, not the 4 stars the Rotten Tomatoes score gives it.
This weekend -- a choice between Parker and Hansel and Gretel.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
About hotels/hotel rooms: What differentiates
Okay, I wouldn't say I travel as much as some road warriors, gone all week all over their territory. But I'm in a stretch where I'm staying in five different hotels over nine nights -- not the first of these in recent memory -- and I'm getting where I have a thumbnail list of what tells one "quality" hotel from another. And I think these distinctions are chain wide, so if say one Hilton does X, the next probably will, too. To save on lawyer fees, I'm not going to name a hotel when I'm giving a negative example; on the positive side, those who like what they see can start sending me checks. :)
Here are my criteria, in no particular order:
1. Size and thickness of towels.
I'm now in "advanced middle age," and am not as small as I used to be. Thus, a towel that does not go all the way around my waist AND have enough room to cinch is...well, an annoyance. So, yes, size does matter.
The next thing is that nothing is worse than being wet and having a (small) towel that is essentially as thick as toilet paper. If you are thinking you might need a second towel to finish the job, it's not thick enough. The current Radisson has done well on both.
2. Glasses made of glass.
This one is probably sketchier than the towel rule, but it makes a difference. Since I reuse my glass, a cup that is clearly "disposable" is suspect. It is one of those things that distinguishes chains -- it's surprising that chains who want to have a 3 star label and reputation put out these cheesy 10 ounce plastic cups. This Radisson has glass drinkware.
3. Bed.
Obviously? I like a firm mattress. I've just spent the last three night in chain hotels whose beds remind me of marshmallows. Of course the current Radisson has the sleep comfort bed (you know, where you set the firmness with a control, which we have on 75), which makes it top notch.
4. Pillows.
The best thing, maybe, about the Hilton chain is that they give you a selection of pillows. I like mine flat (goes with the firm of the mattress). Big, foamy pillows give me a neck crick. That's not a good memory to take away from a hotel. Give me a choice.
5. Wifi ease.
I can't tell you how many times I've spent lots of minutes, sometimes more & on the phone, trying to get Wifi access that I'm promised. I would claim that this about work, which I obviously travel for, but I think it's more about reproducing home conditions, where the wifi works well and constantly. How hard is it for a multi-billion dollar conglomerate to simulate that? But it's amazing how often passwords don't work, signals give out, or the sign in page doesn't pop up.
6. TV & channels
It's been a long time since I was in a room that didn't have like a 40" HD TV. But you'd be amazed at how often your choice of channels is limited -- far less than my cable company's basic package. The other night I wanted to watch *Justified* on FX and !!! the hotel didn't offer that station. Not like Fx is the 3rd Big Ten Network channel or something. You know how frustrating it can be to know the show and channel you want, be stuck in your room so you can watch it, and then...zip zip nada.
There's my list. Maybe I'll refine it someday. But now I'm on vacation and I can almost hear the sea lions calling me.
Here are my criteria, in no particular order:
1. Size and thickness of towels.
I'm now in "advanced middle age," and am not as small as I used to be. Thus, a towel that does not go all the way around my waist AND have enough room to cinch is...well, an annoyance. So, yes, size does matter.
The next thing is that nothing is worse than being wet and having a (small) towel that is essentially as thick as toilet paper. If you are thinking you might need a second towel to finish the job, it's not thick enough. The current Radisson has done well on both.
2. Glasses made of glass.
This one is probably sketchier than the towel rule, but it makes a difference. Since I reuse my glass, a cup that is clearly "disposable" is suspect. It is one of those things that distinguishes chains -- it's surprising that chains who want to have a 3 star label and reputation put out these cheesy 10 ounce plastic cups. This Radisson has glass drinkware.
3. Bed.
Obviously? I like a firm mattress. I've just spent the last three night in chain hotels whose beds remind me of marshmallows. Of course the current Radisson has the sleep comfort bed (you know, where you set the firmness with a control, which we have on 75), which makes it top notch.
4. Pillows.
The best thing, maybe, about the Hilton chain is that they give you a selection of pillows. I like mine flat (goes with the firm of the mattress). Big, foamy pillows give me a neck crick. That's not a good memory to take away from a hotel. Give me a choice.
5. Wifi ease.
I can't tell you how many times I've spent lots of minutes, sometimes more & on the phone, trying to get Wifi access that I'm promised. I would claim that this about work, which I obviously travel for, but I think it's more about reproducing home conditions, where the wifi works well and constantly. How hard is it for a multi-billion dollar conglomerate to simulate that? But it's amazing how often passwords don't work, signals give out, or the sign in page doesn't pop up.
6. TV & channels
It's been a long time since I was in a room that didn't have like a 40" HD TV. But you'd be amazed at how often your choice of channels is limited -- far less than my cable company's basic package. The other night I wanted to watch *Justified* on FX and !!! the hotel didn't offer that station. Not like Fx is the 3rd Big Ten Network channel or something. You know how frustrating it can be to know the show and channel you want, be stuck in your room so you can watch it, and then...zip zip nada.
There's my list. Maybe I'll refine it someday. But now I'm on vacation and I can almost hear the sea lions calling me.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Jack Reacher & Golden Globes
So, I saw two movies this weekend. Zero Dark Thirty (see earlier blog) and then Jack Reacher.
Warning: we saw Reacher rather than seeing Gangster Squad. This was due to the poor rating for Gangster on RottenTomatoes (33%) -- where Reacher got a 61.
I don't know about RottenTomatoes's 33 but they were about right on Reacher.
I've not read the books the movie is based on, so have no axe to grind about how well they match up to the movie version, or whether Tom Cruise ought to be playing Reacher. Shrug.
But, as a Pennsylvanian, I found the heavy use of Pittsburgh interesting. The crime that starts the movie and brings Reacher (Cruise) out of hiding takes place on the river in front of PNC Park -- a pretty iconic piece of scenery.
Cruise is pretty believable as the terse, insular, tough Reacher. He doesn't give much away about what's he thinking, even to his charming "partner" (Rosamund Pike, who fortunately gets lots of screen time). He beats the hell out of groups of guys trying to beat him, which is okay because it's clear they are amateurs who have never actually fought anyone who knows what he/she is doing, and Reacher clearly does. It's not about size.
Robert Duvall, as he often does, steals the show as a gun range operator. He's a real highlight.
Werner Herzog is wasted as Zek, the criminal leader. Not enough scenes, not enough lines.
It's not great art, but it's solidly done. It's good -- not "I'd see it twice" good (see later paragraph) -- but good enough that if you go expecting a decent whodunit with an attractive co-star and some shoot 'em up, then you'll be good. If you want high art, go see Les Mis.
Speaking of Les Mis, it won the Golden Globe last night for best comedy or musical. I'm no fan of musicals, so I can't call this a travesty. But I'd have voted for either Moonrise Kingdom or Silver Linings over it.
I felt better about Argo winning the Drama GG over Zero Dark, though my vote would have gone to Lincoln.
Which brings us to the question: how do I determine such things?
Given some bit of thought, I realize that one rule of thumb is whether or not I want to see a movie again. I hope someone puts me out of my misery rather than seeing Les Mis again (I saw it once for love).
Likewise, I found Zero Dark tedious. Cut it down about 45 minutes...
Argo was good, enjoyable, solid. I wouldn't hate seeing it again, but I wouldn't see a point.
I'd see Lincoln again. Not that I was overwhelmed by it the first time, but there was stuff in it that you feel like seeing it again would make you re-see the movie. The first time you focus a lot on Daniel Day Lewis, who you can't believe can be so Lincoln.
I didn't think a lot of Anna Karenina, the whole plot about the ethics of adultery and love is just...well, it's not that palatable. But the things that were done by Tom Stoppard and Joe Wright were clever, and said something with the stagecraft (double entendre intended) that spoke to what was going on in Tolstoy's book and the motif of the story.
So, there you have it. Rah rah Lincoln, Moonrise and Silver Linings. And I hope someone knocks me out before I have to see Les Mis again.
Warning: we saw Reacher rather than seeing Gangster Squad. This was due to the poor rating for Gangster on RottenTomatoes (33%) -- where Reacher got a 61.
I don't know about RottenTomatoes's 33 but they were about right on Reacher.
I've not read the books the movie is based on, so have no axe to grind about how well they match up to the movie version, or whether Tom Cruise ought to be playing Reacher. Shrug.
But, as a Pennsylvanian, I found the heavy use of Pittsburgh interesting. The crime that starts the movie and brings Reacher (Cruise) out of hiding takes place on the river in front of PNC Park -- a pretty iconic piece of scenery.
Cruise is pretty believable as the terse, insular, tough Reacher. He doesn't give much away about what's he thinking, even to his charming "partner" (Rosamund Pike, who fortunately gets lots of screen time). He beats the hell out of groups of guys trying to beat him, which is okay because it's clear they are amateurs who have never actually fought anyone who knows what he/she is doing, and Reacher clearly does. It's not about size.
Robert Duvall, as he often does, steals the show as a gun range operator. He's a real highlight.
Werner Herzog is wasted as Zek, the criminal leader. Not enough scenes, not enough lines.
It's not great art, but it's solidly done. It's good -- not "I'd see it twice" good (see later paragraph) -- but good enough that if you go expecting a decent whodunit with an attractive co-star and some shoot 'em up, then you'll be good. If you want high art, go see Les Mis.
Speaking of Les Mis, it won the Golden Globe last night for best comedy or musical. I'm no fan of musicals, so I can't call this a travesty. But I'd have voted for either Moonrise Kingdom or Silver Linings over it.
I felt better about Argo winning the Drama GG over Zero Dark, though my vote would have gone to Lincoln.
Which brings us to the question: how do I determine such things?
Given some bit of thought, I realize that one rule of thumb is whether or not I want to see a movie again. I hope someone puts me out of my misery rather than seeing Les Mis again (I saw it once for love).
Likewise, I found Zero Dark tedious. Cut it down about 45 minutes...
Argo was good, enjoyable, solid. I wouldn't hate seeing it again, but I wouldn't see a point.
I'd see Lincoln again. Not that I was overwhelmed by it the first time, but there was stuff in it that you feel like seeing it again would make you re-see the movie. The first time you focus a lot on Daniel Day Lewis, who you can't believe can be so Lincoln.
I didn't think a lot of Anna Karenina, the whole plot about the ethics of adultery and love is just...well, it's not that palatable. But the things that were done by Tom Stoppard and Joe Wright were clever, and said something with the stagecraft (double entendre intended) that spoke to what was going on in Tolstoy's book and the motif of the story.
So, there you have it. Rah rah Lincoln, Moonrise and Silver Linings. And I hope someone knocks me out before I have to see Les Mis again.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Division Playoffs! Go Big w Confidence Picks this Week!
Week two of the playoffs: more or less fun?
Week one went well for me: 4 for 4 and 26 points (in 66 point league). Only in 8th place, but I've got 40 points left to win the whole thing.
So, this is the week.
First, the spread on the Broncos and Patriots home games are large. Two scores large. I agree -- go big on them. I'm going 11 on Broncs, 10 on Pats. Though, warning! I always worry about Pats after layoff. Remember first game losses in 2010 & 2011? And this Patriots team, like so many recently, is light on D (25th in yards, 9th in scoring), and not perceived as a great rushing team (though in top ten in yards).
Second, the spread on the Niners and Falcons game is within a field goal, though the Falcon spread is larger than you might expect given various rankings at 2.5 points. The Falcons game is a tossup, though the loss of their best rush lineman will hurt the Seahawks. The Falcons, like the Patriots, are worrisome in opening games -- they've lost 4 straight first games. And they've not been juggernauts late in the year anyway.
I think the Falcons are my "upset" pick this week, going 2 points.
And I think the Niners win over the Packers. But the Pack might...well, we all have images from two years ago of Aaron Rodgers lighting up everybody and taking home the Lombardi Trophy. If it's a 30-point per side offensive explosion, I'm not betting on Rodgers losing a shootout to a guy who wasn't starting until six weeks ago.
But this weekend reminded us about playoff football -- the highest scoring team put 24 on the board. In a game where the winning score is 17, 20, 21 or 24, I feel good about the Niners D, special teams, and running game winning.
I'm wavering here about one thing: how much to put on Niners. I've got a 9 left to use, and 4-3-1.
Look ahead to the conference championship: how much are you putting on Pats-Broncos? If the Niners and Falcons win, are you going 9 on Niners in Atlanta? Not me.
And the Super Bowl. Broncos-Pats v. who? Even against the Seahawks, who look to be the least regarded by oddsmakers, are you going 9 on an AFC win? Not me.
So, I'm tempted to use the 9 on Niners. It's a gamble.
But isn't that what we are in this for? Gambling.
GL
Week one went well for me: 4 for 4 and 26 points (in 66 point league). Only in 8th place, but I've got 40 points left to win the whole thing.
So, this is the week.
First, the spread on the Broncos and Patriots home games are large. Two scores large. I agree -- go big on them. I'm going 11 on Broncs, 10 on Pats. Though, warning! I always worry about Pats after layoff. Remember first game losses in 2010 & 2011? And this Patriots team, like so many recently, is light on D (25th in yards, 9th in scoring), and not perceived as a great rushing team (though in top ten in yards).
Second, the spread on the Niners and Falcons game is within a field goal, though the Falcon spread is larger than you might expect given various rankings at 2.5 points. The Falcons game is a tossup, though the loss of their best rush lineman will hurt the Seahawks. The Falcons, like the Patriots, are worrisome in opening games -- they've lost 4 straight first games. And they've not been juggernauts late in the year anyway.
I think the Falcons are my "upset" pick this week, going 2 points.
And I think the Niners win over the Packers. But the Pack might...well, we all have images from two years ago of Aaron Rodgers lighting up everybody and taking home the Lombardi Trophy. If it's a 30-point per side offensive explosion, I'm not betting on Rodgers losing a shootout to a guy who wasn't starting until six weeks ago.
But this weekend reminded us about playoff football -- the highest scoring team put 24 on the board. In a game where the winning score is 17, 20, 21 or 24, I feel good about the Niners D, special teams, and running game winning.
I'm wavering here about one thing: how much to put on Niners. I've got a 9 left to use, and 4-3-1.
Look ahead to the conference championship: how much are you putting on Pats-Broncos? If the Niners and Falcons win, are you going 9 on Niners in Atlanta? Not me.
And the Super Bowl. Broncos-Pats v. who? Even against the Seahawks, who look to be the least regarded by oddsmakers, are you going 9 on an AFC win? Not me.
So, I'm tempted to use the 9 on Niners. It's a gamble.
But isn't that what we are in this for? Gambling.
GL
Friday, January 4, 2013
Wilcard Week Confidence Picks: THE Strategy
First, I sucked it up last week.
Second, I sucked it up in last year's playoff confidence picks. Remember last year? Giants at 9-7 sweep to Super Bowl? Pats, chalking when no one thinks they are "that" good, to the Super Bowl against them?
Third, we all know there'll be at least one upset this weekend. But is the Redskins, 1 1/2 point home 'dogs, winning an upset? The Packers, 8 point favs, losing would be a REAL upset.
So, strategically, what to do? I found that by picking (guessing) one upset because I assume an upset usually means I end up losing two games, not one. The one I guess wrong about being and upset AND the REAL upset.
So, here's the strategy: chalk. Packers, Texans, Ravens, Seahawks in that order. I'd go 8-7-6-5.
That leaves your 11 for whoever goes to Denver next week. And your 10 for whoever goes to NE (a redux of the Houston slaughter of a few weeks ago?). And your low numbers to put on whoever plays the Falcons. If it's the Seahawks, you might go crazy and go 9.
So, be smart: stick with the favorites, knowing you (and most everyone) is going to miss one.
That's my call. If I'm sitting next week with 26, I'll feel pretty good. Wouldn't you?
Second, I sucked it up in last year's playoff confidence picks. Remember last year? Giants at 9-7 sweep to Super Bowl? Pats, chalking when no one thinks they are "that" good, to the Super Bowl against them?
Third, we all know there'll be at least one upset this weekend. But is the Redskins, 1 1/2 point home 'dogs, winning an upset? The Packers, 8 point favs, losing would be a REAL upset.
So, strategically, what to do? I found that by picking (guessing) one upset because I assume an upset usually means I end up losing two games, not one. The one I guess wrong about being and upset AND the REAL upset.
So, here's the strategy: chalk. Packers, Texans, Ravens, Seahawks in that order. I'd go 8-7-6-5.
That leaves your 11 for whoever goes to Denver next week. And your 10 for whoever goes to NE (a redux of the Houston slaughter of a few weeks ago?). And your low numbers to put on whoever plays the Falcons. If it's the Seahawks, you might go crazy and go 9.
So, be smart: stick with the favorites, knowing you (and most everyone) is going to miss one.
That's my call. If I'm sitting next week with 26, I'll feel pretty good. Wouldn't you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)