Happy End of 2013!

Where has the year gone?! I can't believe it's already the end of 2013. In fact, where'd the last 1.5 months go since my last post? December FLEW by and then, to cap it, I was all confused when Christmas was and kept thinking things were a week closer than they were. No clue why. At any rate, I can't believe this year has flown by. I went to the chiropractor yesterday and he said it's been 11 months since he last saw me. My first thought was, "I was here in January!" and then went, "Oh, wait, January is next month...Yeah, that was 11 months ago. What...?" I can't believe it's 2014 in a few days! In fact, I must be really excited for 2014 because I keep wanting to write it instead of 2013. I can't say 2013 was a terrible year, but it was certainly an uneventful one for me. Not to say that's a bad thing because, goodness knows, it could have been "bad" eventful and there was none of that. So, I'm thankful for my year just to be able to say I made it another year and I've got a home, have a good standard of living, a job (albeit, I wanted to quit it several times the past year), and my family and friends are doing well. As a friend posted on FB when it was my birthday, "Congratulations on existing another year!" Made me laugh. Might be a little dire, but it's true too.

At any rate, looking forward to 2014. My middle brother and his family will be back in the States so I get to see them and a nephew I've never met! I, hopefully, will be able to attend the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita on November 1st. Get to see the rest of the family and friends through the year and hope them all the best in health and happiness. I've got several (and I do mean SEVERAL) friends who are having kids in 2014 so that'll be fun to see. Some are also getting married. Chris, hopefully, will be bought out from the tempt agency he's with and hired full-time at his company (if not, he'll be looking for a new job). I, hopefully, will be getting a new job (where ever that may be). I might even work on getting my driver's license! Don't hold me to that because it has been 28 years in the making, but it's time. We'll see how that goes, though (i.e., the family members who read this, don't even mention to me I wrote this LoL). I've got some new books coming out next year I'm looking forward to and, of course, new movies to watch. I'd mention new nail polish, but I think that's a given. In addition, I plan to go on a super limited nail polish buy for 3-6 months (not a no buy because there are a few things I want, but super limited). I won't say the specific AMOUNT of polish I have acquired (gifts or personal purchases) the last 2 months, but I think it amounted to more polish than I bought the 10 months preceding it combined...To say the least, I need to clean out my polishes to make room for next year and limit my purchasing...Haven't figured out the clean out method yet, but I do plan to try and make it through a chunk of my "untrieds" next year. I also plan to save more next year. I don't have a contract with the Aquarium next year so I need to be more diligent about saving next year, especially at my salary and if I plan to go to the Breeders' Cup next year. I'm not buying a new hat next year (or very unlikely buying a new one, I do really like mine), but will get a new dress. And, lastly, I am also going to try to be better about exercising. I start and stop far too much...Granted, I stopped this last time because I injured my back. I actually worked out through the pain for 1.5 weeks and then finally it got too bad. Probably didn't help my back... :P At any rate, I'm looking forward to 2014! I do like how this started with what I was looking forward to and then dissolved to quasi-resolutions. I don't really do resolutions at the start of a new year because any time of the year should be the time to do a resolution or a change, but the new year definitely makes it nice and "neat."

The past 1.5 months has been pretty uneventful on the grand scheme of things. I did injure my back from exercising. I tell you, my back on the right side (hip bone area) does not like me and exercising. It's twice now that I've injured the same area by way of shifting something really far out of alignment. This time it was a slow move and continual pain for weeks (almost 3 weeks before I went in and only because I overdid it last week and the pain got really severe). The other time it was a sharp movement (I couldn't move or sit for a few days), but my body adjusted to it fairly quickly and was pain free (I did immediately stop exercising, though...). The chiropractic adjustment was really painful (my worst one ever), but I was pretty much okay right after it. This adjustment was painful, but I must have aggravated the tissue and ligamanets around the area much worse because I still have pretty uncomfortable pain. Two different type of exercises and different results/pain, but in the same area. Gosh dang it. I have to be more careful! I am glad I don't have the same pain level, though, and I'm off for 4-days so hopefully I'll give my back a rest. I've been working through the pain and just limiting my movements. Other than my back, my co-worker fell off a ladder trying to get his cat off his roof and fractured his foot. And then another co-worker had a family emergency for two days and then another one wasn't feeling well. I tell you, it's not been a good December for our store. Other than that, I guess it's been semi-okay (small flare-ups here-and-there) from the work angle. Personal life is pretty uneventful, except that Chris's Christmas present STILL hasn't arrived. I ordered it 20 days ago...*sigh* It didn't ship out till the 15th and it's coming from Canada...Still waiting! This Christmas, in fact, was a terrible on-line shopping experience. Not all of it to do with shipping (I do feel a little sorry for UPS/FedEx, but they should have increased hours (overtime?) if they saw the volume increased the week before Christmas), but it was crazy.

Chris and I have been watching Game of Thrones (season 1 and 2) since my boss owns the first two seasons on DVD. I've read a great deal of information about the books and know a lot of people who have read them so I knew, generally, what to expect. They've also been on my "to read" pile and actually own the first 3 or 4 (got them from a friend - haven't read them, but Chris has read at least the first one), but haven't gotten to them. So, to say the least, I knew what to expect, but I just didn't know the details. I only have 2 episodes of season 2 left to watch and I'm not sure about it...My two biggest complaints about the TV show:

1) Where is this all going? What's the purpose of everything? I'm not opposed to the meandering paths where you don't have a clear objective (e.g., Harry vanquishing Voldemort; Frodo destroying the ring; following someone's life as it unfolds; etc), but this one is a real big "what's my objective?!" In other words, what will my payoff be after I finish this series? Reading about someone's life or the people around them (e.g., Les Miserables) I can read, but there's usually a payoff at the end. This one I can't see where it's going at all and makes me sort of want to quit.

2) There's no clear protagonist or antagonist. Again, I can deal with ensemble books with lots of characters, but this one gives everyone such a flaw that you dislike them or kills off anyone remotely likeable that it makes me want to give up because I'm either scared to like someone because they might get killed or they're so stupid or mean that I just can't like them. I'm actually dreading to watch season 3 because I know 2 of the characters I like now die in season 3. I'm actually reading character synopsizes to try and find someone I can "grab hold" of for the series to keep me going. I'm sorry, but I am one of those people who DOES need a protagonist to keep me going or, again, what's my payoff at the end?

For me, those two issues are pretty big. I will say that the shows are pretty violent, but I can't say they're really any more violent then some other movies or TV shows I've watched. The nudity in the shows, though, are pretty unnecessary. They could give the impression or angle it or whatever. On the other hand, there are several prostitutes that are major characters and one character owns a brothel. Also, apparently, the books do have an abundance of sex in them so, one could say they're being "faithful" to the series. At this point, I've gotten used to the nudity. I also think HBO is doing a pretty amazing job with the sets, costumes, production, etc. They're magnificent to watch. They did not spare a penny on the show. I think the casting is pretty good too. It's hard to really say if someone is really bad given I haven't read the series, though. I do think, though, Peter Dinklage has the best character of them all. He's the only one that I can really say I like in the series and he's, technically, on the protagonist side (sort of). See, there's the problem with the characters! Chris and I have started a saying with the show, "Honor gets you killed." Because, truly, that's what happens to a lot of the characters. It may not be an immediate death, but eventually it does. Also, there are a lot of stupid characters...At any rate, I at first went, "Oh, I really need to read the series now to get more out of the characters," but now I don't know if I even want to...If there's no payoff and I go through all that reading for nothing, I will be angry. So, I might wait. We'll see. I am curious to read the first book, but I may stop after the 3rd or something (which I've been told is a good place to stop even though there are 5 books and more to come (yes, George R. R. Martin hasn't finished the series, yet)). Any way, it's definitely a perplexing series for me...I sort of want to give up because of my issues, but it's well-done....

Lots of movies since my last movie update 2 months ago -- 22 to be exact. These will mostly be short opinions because it's been a while for some and there's just a lot of them! I'll elaborate on a few that I have strong opinions about or saw recently (Lone Ranger I saw today so it's, clearly, got the longest review).

Thor: The Dark World (Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman) - Not a bad film, but not great. I don't think I liked this one as much as the first, but it's pretty on par. There's really only one scene that I REALLY liked and it involved Loki. It's a hilarious scene and everyone that I know who has seen it has also liked it too. The credit scenes at the end were okay. The first one was better and supposedly leads up to the Guardians of the Galaxy, but the 2nd and last one was just…mostly stupid. I just don't like Thor as much as Captain America. Grade: B-

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth) - This one was FAR better than the first. Much, much better. I liked the whole movie and liked it enough that I knew I wanted to own it on DVD; therefore, I went out and bought, on Black Friday, the first one. LoL You can't own the 2nd one and not the first! At any rate, it was much better. Peeta is pretty much continuously weak in the films (not the actor, the character), but whatever. The extra money for this film, I suppose, worked for the film rather than making it "over-the-top" and gratuitous. Or maybe everyone was just better situated in their roles…? Who knows. It's much better. Grade: A

The Colony (Kevin Zegers, Laurence Fishburne) - What a terribly depressing film! Definitely not what I expected. I thought it would be more about the colony trying to find others or surviving. It is about surviving, but it's much more of a survival movie from a neighboring colony. On top of it, it's a little more gruesome than I expected and it's got a rather depressing, open-ended ending! Don't recommend it… Grade: D

The Croods (Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, etc) - Not a bad 20th Century Fox animation. Not that they've had a real dud. It's cute. It's a cute film about family and the craziness that can be family. It has good animation too. Not entirely memorable as an "Animation of the Year" film, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's up for the category this year. My prediction: Monster University, The Croods, Turbo, Frozen, and a foreign animation film. Solid family film, but maybe for an older younger age. Grade: B-/C+

White House Down (Channing Tatum, Jamie Foxx) - What are the odds that two similar-ish movies would come out in the same year with the White House has been taken by force? At any rate, between the two (Olympus Has Fallen) and this one, I liked this one better. It was less "serious" and pure action. Olympus Has Fallen is a little more serious and has a stricter plot line. This one is a little tongue-and-cheek so it's a little more fun to watch. Plus, it's purely about the White House and not the surrounding DC area so you don't get any "accidental" funny scenes of people running from guns…Still, not great. Grade: C 

The Hangover Part III (Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ed Helms, etc) - You always go into these knowing they're going to be over-the-top and silly. This was definitely silly. This one revolves more around Galifianakis's character (each one kind of revolves around one of them and the rest get dragged into it). I didn't like it as much as the first two, to be honest. I felt like this one was just overly silly…? I don't prefer Galifianakis's character in any of the films and since he's highlighted in this one, it just made it worse for me. Wouldn't recommend this. Grade: D

The Heat (Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy) - Take Miss Congeniality and smash it with McCarthy's character (or feel) from Bridesmaids and what you get is The Heat. I described this to someone who hadn't seen it yet and it makes you go, "Wha…?" at first, but then she watched it and totally agreed with me afterwards. It's an okay film. Wasn't bad. It had some funny moments, but I don't necessarily think it was better than the individual films I had just described. It's okay. Grade: C+

The Internship (Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson) - Surprisingly better than I thought it was going to be. It's not as silly or crude as you'd expect from a Vaughn/Wilson film. There's actually kind of a "nice" moment in the film and a kind of nice message about not giving up, misfits, and so forth. Still wasn't fantastic, but wasn't bad either. Grade: C

R.I.P.D. (Jeff Bridges, Ryan Reynolds) - Just about on the edge of being a terrible movie. No wonder I had no desire to watch it in theaters and definitely no wonder it didn't do well. It was an interesting idea, but was poorly executed. Doesn't help that I'm not a huge fan of Reynolds either, but Bridges couldn't even salvage the movie. Definitely near the bottom of my least favorite films of the year. Grade: D/D-

Red 2 (Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, Helen Mirren) - I liked the first RED movie enough that I wanted to watch the 2nd one. I liked this one too. It's about the same. It's kind of funny seeing all the characters in their "older" stages going out and kicking butt and wrecking havoc. Can't say it's really better or worse than the first since I don't remember the first all that well, but I enjoyed this enough. Grade: C

The Way, Way Back (Steve Carell, Liam James) - This is another coming of age movie and it's a decent one. I thought the acting was really good and, honestly, the poor kid! His mother seriously needs a brain and I'm glad she gets it at the end. It's a cute film. I don't think it's as good as The Kings of Summer, but it's also a little different. It's kind of weird seeing Carell as the non-family man and being a jerk. Grade: B-

2 Guns (Denzel Washington, Mark Wahlberg) - Not a bad film, but also predictable and kind of "crazy." I thought Wahlberg and Washington were well paired and the script worked for the both of them well. It's a little violent, but nothing too much that you wouldn't expect from an action film like this. The mystery of where the money was interesting. I will say, I refuse to watch any film Paula Patton is in anymore because I have seen her nude twice this year and that's 2 times too many! Can't she keep her clothes on?! Also explains why the Miley Cyrus/Rob Thicke thing didn't really make her comment too… Grade: C

Planes (Dane Cook, Stacy Keach, etc) - Cute. Can't say it was great, but it was cute. I enjoyed it. Decent animation. Not to the Cars standards of Pixar, but Disney did an okay job with it. Good, solid family film for almost any age. Grade: C+

Turbo (Ryan Reynolds, Paul Giamatti, Michael Peña, Samuel L. Jackson, etc) - Another good, decent animation. I thought it was cute. I can't say it was great and whole snail thing was different, but it worked the way it was. My only complaint is I didn't like Reynolds voicing the movie…It was distracting for me for whatever reason. Kind of funny given he didn't bother me in The Croods…It's a cute family film. Not as good as Monster University (I think that or Frozen will win Best Animation), but not bad. Grade: C+/B-

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, etc) - I was REALLY torn about seeing this as I've heard the stories about the author and plagiarism and such. I haven't read the books because of it, but the movie got the best of me. Not a great movie. I was rather bored through most of it, but you do see the main character grow through the film. It's maybe too long as a movie, though…I don't know. There was something "off" about the movie. Movies like this and Divergent and such, which are based off of Young Adult novels, aren't doing well this year even though they were popular in book sales. I guess not everything can be a Hunger Games and Harry Potter. Grade: D+/C-

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, etc) - Honestly, I was disappointed in 'Smaug. There were many scenes in it that weren't in the book (not a big deal), but they, unfortunately, felt like fillers to me. With that said, though I did actually think through the movie, "Filler, filler, filler…" the movie was really well-paced. For a 2:40 hour long movie, you didn't feel like you'd been sitting there that long. So, it was kind of weird to both think "filler" and, yet, enjoy the movie enough that the fillers didn't make me feel like the movie was long. With that said, this one isn't as good as the first, which isn't surprising. Also, this film made me definitely think 3 films is too much for such a short book and I haven't even seen the third movie. I'll own this and I'll watch it again, but it could have been either shorter or the series made into 2 movies. Also, for whatever reason, the special effects in this movie bothered me. They didn't feel as crisp as you'd come to expect from Peter Jackson. There were a lot of obvious green screens too. I'm not sure if it's because I saw it in 2D instead of 3D or whatever, but that was also disappointing. Grade: B

The World's End (Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, etc) - I watched 97% of Sean of the Dead, but I didn't watch Hot Fuzz. So, in some way, I may have missed some nuances and inside jokes, but I liked this enough. I did feel, unfortunately, that it was Stepford Wives…That was disappointing. It was funny at times and the end was kind of weird/funny, but it was okay. I'm glad I watched it and it was fun seeing the boys reminiscence about the past. Grade: B

Elysium (Matt Damon) - Kind of a depressing end, but I guess its was one of those "for the greater good" stories. Special effects weren't bad. The story was pretty predictable, but not bad. It was okay. Grade: C+/C

Paranoia (Liam Hemsworth, Gary Oldman, Harrison Ford, Amber Heard) - Uh. What? I actually spent more time trying to identify the cars in the movie than actually watching the movie, I think. What could have been really interesting, it was severely bland. Oldman and Ford did decent acting, but I didn't really like Hemsworth character. And it was a fight between wealthy men and one of them trying to be a wealthy man. I don't know…it was pretty stupid. Grade: D

American Hustle (Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, Jennifer Lawrence) - I really enjoyed American Hustle. I liked the script, acting, story, and direction. It was all well-done and pulled a fast one on you at the end if you weren't paying attention. I liked that. At its core, it is a con movie through-and-through and not just a movie about cons being caught and used to catch corrupt politicians. I also liked watching Renner's character devolve and the depths of the rest come to light. At first, everyone seems like "bad" people and you're glad they get caught, but, as the movie goes on, you get to know the reasons why and you figure out truly who is the "bad" guy and who isn't. It's got a similar flavor to Silver Linings Playbook so you could tell this was a Russell film. I'd probably own this on DVD eventually. If anything, needs a rewatch to see if you can pick up any clues for the end. Grade: A/A-

Frozen (Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Josh Gad, etc) - I liked Frozen! It might have been my favorite animation of the year. Disney has definitely gotten back its animation movie mojo or whatever. It was another solid effort by them. The musical numbers, I must admit, felt a little weird to me. It felt a little less like the characters singing and more like I was watching a live theater play…? I don't know. The singing in animations just feels weird to me in the recent Disney films (the love song in Tangled took me 2 or 3 views for me to feel "solid" about it), but maybe I just need to see it again. With that said, I did like most of the musical numbers. I liked the two princesses and I liked Olaf. The end was rather sappy and predictable. I kind of felt like you went on this grand adventure and then the end wrapped up SO neatly, cleanly, and quickly that it was a little bit jarring. Still like the film, though. Grade: A

Lone Ranger (Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer) - On its own, the movie isn't too bad, but as a remake, it's absolutely terrible. I will say, the trailer portrayed a cheesier movie, in my opinion. The movie actually wasn't too bad on its own if you removed yourself from every perspective of The Lone Ranger you have in your head (kind of hard to do). There were some things I really didn't like (the slaughtering (and that's what it really was in a "family movie" appropriate manner) of the Comanche, for one), but the fight scenes were okay. The acting wasn't too bad. The comedy wasn't too bad and actually made me chuckle. Unfortunately, the script was rather bad. Hammer wasn't a terrible John Reid, but he came off more "silly" and "green" than Tonto. And the movie is quasi from Tonto's perspective, but, truly, he's just the story-teller. My BIGGEST complaint, there was NOT enough Silver in the movie! And where Silver was doing cool stuff, it was CG (not surprising). It needed more Silver...My other complaint is you could 100% tell this was an attempt to gain the Pirates of the Caribbean glory days. Gore Verbinski directed PotC and he directed this. Not to mention Jerry Bruckheimer (PotC producer) and Hans Zimmer (composer for PotC 2 and 3) were also involved. In fact, one song in Lone Ranger reminded me a little of PotC and there are two characters that rob the civilians and are caught in women dresses or with umbrellas (remind you of a certain pair from PotC? Though, not same actors). So, that was a little weird. I will say, I really like the soundtrack. It's not what you'd expect from Zimmer or for the movie, but it all works. The Finale song based on William Tell's overture is amazing. I don't think it's purely William Tell. I do think Zimmer adds his own into it to work better with the movie, but it's great and a lot of the classic. Besides the "Finale," "Silver" is my favorite song. The end of the song is so beautiful and emotional. In all, if you ignore the fact it's a remake and don't mind the terrible script, it's an okay movie (i.e., thank you action scenes for saving it!). If you factor in the remake, it's absolutely terrible. Grade: C (I liked the action scenes and soundtrack or C-/D+ for remake)

With those 22 movies, I have watched 109 movies this year! I might see one more this weekend given I've got Sat/Sun off with Chris, but we'll see. I will say it was kind of a dud movie year, but I'll go through everything on my movie recap of 2013.

With 4 days left of the year, I'm going to try and read 2 more books. I'm 2 books away from matching last year's 68 count. Granted, I count rereads, but only rereads if I read the ENTIRE book again. Still, for whatever reason, I've been sluggish the end of this year (especially December). I've got books I want to read, but I just can't get myself to actually READ them. Ugh. I have been watching a lot of stuff, but I always take time to read and...I don't know. Weird. Hoping next year is better for the reading, but I should get going to trying to finish 2 books in 4 days. :)

Hope everyone has a good start to the new year!

Breeders' Cup 2013

Was hoping I'd get this up sooner, but getting all my pictures downloaded, cropped, or whatever and getting the videos to post (what a pain!) took longer than expected. At any rate...Here's the post about the BC. Link to my photos and videos at the very end. :)

So...it was an AMAZING day of races! It's definitely one of those experiences you need to have more than once to really get into the groove and to appreciate it more. I think I was a little overwhelmed the first time. Not to say I didn't have fun my first time, I did (a lot), but it's crazy too! 

This year, Tori and I decided to dress up and get seats. We did the no-seat thing last year, but it's a big race day and one of those days you can dress up and not have people looking at you funny. :) At any rate, I spent a great deal of time coming up with my hat and figuring out the details. I think we both turned out smashing! The thing about the races, especially a big day like the BC is you'll have people there in shorts and a t-shirt, people like me in a sundress and a hat, and others in a full beaded cocktail dress. That's basically the group of us who walked up to the gate. It was rather funny. Guys can be in shorts, slacks, or full suits. Or, as the case I saw once, a guy in shorts and no shirt. LoL The infield at the Kentucky Derby or any of the Triple Crown (TC) races has a reputation for debauchery. People bring coolers in, get drunk, etc, etc. The stands are for those that are a little more "civilized." The BC is different in that the infield hasn't gotten to that level. The infield is definitely for those who are more laid back (I think we were some of the only people in the infield who were even dressed up), but it's more "family" feeling than debauchery (to be fair, the debauchery at the Kentucky Derby is what the TV shows a lot rather than what I know to be true). A lot of families with their kids were out in the infield. 

Anyway, to start the day, Tori and I went to San Gabriel to a nail supply store. It sells things at (mostly) wholesale prices so you save a ton of polishes! I'd say they are around half-price of retail (not always, OPI, is only about 30% off), which is pretty good! It's hard not to go nuts...Especially since they're the huge displays and carry the collections for the year. I do always put back some, but I still always leave with a lot. I did walk out with 4 top coats this year, but they're half price and it's my main top coat now! Plus, I wasn't sure when I'd be back. LoL Anyway, after the polish place (I think we were in there for a little more than an hour...), we went to Santa Anita, which is about a half hour away from where we were at. 

The major difference this year for entering the park was metal detectors! They didn't have those last year and it completely flustered me because I wasn't paying attention. LoL I got a bin shoved in my face to put my stuff in it and it was confusing for a second. So then I'm about to walk through and the guy goes, "I need you to open your purse." I had so much stuff in it, though, I had to empty some of it out, but without thinking, I walked through the metal detector with stuff in my hand! Set it off. Figures. I put it all down and walked through again and I set it off again! It was funny because the attendant dude looks at me and goes, "Do you have any metal on you anywhere?" And I know he's not trying to be rude, but he looks me up and down critically as he says it and then I realize he's thinking (unless it's under my skirt), there is no way I'm hiding anything from the waist up nor do I have any other metal on me. LoL So I'm processing that and say that I didn't have anything else on me and the female attendant says, "The hat. The hats have been setting it off" Light bulb went off and then I remembered my hat has a wire in it. (Female attendant had to explain that to the dude.) I took it off and went through fine. Once through, you get our ticket scanned, walk through the turnstile thing, and you're in! I got my lanyard for my ticket and my free program. I didn't buy a Daily Racing Form this year. I never really use it and it's just another thing to carry. I mostly buy it because I *can* buy it. LoL Only certain places carry it (mostly simulcasts and tracks).

The best thing about walking through the main gates of Santa Anita, though, is you IMMEDIATELY see the Zenyatta statue in front of the fountain! We took some photos in front, of course. I can't pass up an opportunity for a picture with Queen Z. :) 

This year, they moved things around. I think they definitely learned from last year. Last year, by the main entrance they had the Tastes of LA, which are basically booths of food that are either the "official" BC stuff (like the cupcake and drink) or it's restaurant foods that are well-known in the area. this year, they moved that all to the OTHER side of the paddock/gardens. So it was less crowded on that end. I like how they moved the horse rescues to be more prominent this year, whereas last year they were hidden back a little. 

Finding our seats was semi-easy. I knew, from the map, which section we were seated and we got to walk over the bridge and get eye-balled by an old lady to make sure we had the proper ticket to enter into the section. We figured it out, but we couldn't figure out what the sections were! We were in section F and we couldn't see any labeling other than seat and row. We finally, at the end sections, found on the back wall it said "G" "H" and maybe "I" so we figured F had to be the section next to "G" and found our seats. It was a total fluke we were in the Clubhouse Apron instead of Clubhouse Loge. We originally wanted the Loge, which is on a 2nd level, has "padded" individual seats, and a little bar-like table-bench in front to put drinks and papers. They're about $40 more than the Apron and it's nice to be higher up. Unfortunately, I dropped the ball and bought our tickets a few days after they went up (I'm signed up for the pre-sales before general public) and they sold out! In horse racing, it kind of goes you want seats higher up and as close to the finish line as possible. Higher up allows you a better view of the entire racetrack and, of course, the finish line is where the real excitement happens. Between those two, which you want more is up to you. We ended up in the 6th row on the end. The seats closest to the finish line were taken and the ones that were open were further back. The seats we got were fairly close to the track, but were also end of the aisle seats so we could get up and down easier. Turns out, they were really good seats! I liked being closer to the track and we weren't that far from the finish line. I also forgot about the tunnel leading to the track and everything else (photographers, news tents, etc), so being further away from the finish meant we could see better in that direction. Also, being in the 6th row meant we were close, but we were also higher than the bottom rows. So, they were excellent seats! If we go next year, I think that's around where we'll sit again. 

 

Photo of the finish of the Filly & Mare Sprint from my seat

I do think my favorite thing about the seats was the cheering. Because we were at the first turn (almost), the horses run around the track and go for about another quarter of a mile while the jockeys try to get them to stop running. When they turn around to go back, they first go by the Clubhouse, which is where we were. When the winner comes back, everyone starts cheering! It happened for every winner. Being in the grandstand, you don't get to do that because they go to the winner's circle, which is near the finish line. So that was fun. The more favorite the winner was, the louder the cheering, but it never failed that there was some cheering. It was a fun aspect of racing I missed out on last year not having a seat, especially not one at the Clubhouse.

I did manage to watch a few races from my seat, which proved to be nice. I wasn't sure how much I'd actually sit in it, but I actually sat in it for maybe a few hours (or less). If I wasn't sitting at it (or, more likely, standing at it), then we were walking around. We went into the infield to get some footage of the horses coming running along the back and saw where they set up the stage for the singers. We also looked at the food trucks. They also had things to do for kids. It was way more active in the infield this year than last year. We got lunch at a crepe food truck and sat on a bench eating while a race was finishing. I also walked around the paddock and we went to the other end of the infield I had never been to. Turns out, the other side away from the stage had a huge picnic table area and another fountain. Never noticed it before! It was less "busy" on that end, which is where we ended up hanging out for a time. The paddock was pretty crazy. It's always crazy because in horse racing it's a big deal to watch a horse get saddled, go to the paddock, get the jockey up, and then walk to the track. It's a big movement. I took photos of the craziness and then briefly saw the other side where the Taste of LA was placed. It was like a mini festival over there. They had some guy singing (a lot) and the food stands. There is also a shaded bench area over there. It's truly amazing, when you think about it, how many different vendors were there! The track is HUGE! In ways, I just like walking around because it's bustling. 

I did talk to a few people this time. Random people who are asking your opinions about the track or whatnot. A lot of people were pretty drunk by the end too, which was kind of amusing at times. This time, instead of seeing a person placing bets on an iPad, I heard a guy in his seat making phone bets. Going to the window to place a bet is part of the fun, but if you're a "hardcore" or seasoned gambler, you basically do it over the phone or Internet. Most times, gambling at big events means you get a ticket you can keep for a souvenir. I know when Zenyatta was racing to win her 3rd BC race and 2nd Classic (not to mention make history by being 20-20), the handle (or the amount gambled) was really high that year. Attendance was high too. A lot of that handle was gambling on Zenyatta winning. If she won, you bet people were going to keep those tickets as a souvenir of history or ebay them off. In fact, a lot of them showed up on ebay afterwards (even though she lost). Anyway, it's kind of interesting to see how everyone bets. It's also funny how people share information. 

 Mizdirection won the Turf Sprint for the 2nd year in a row

The races were especially interesting this year. I'm not sure how much it says about the races or the track, but 9 winners from last year returned to this year and 5 of them repeated their win. FIVE. It's usually a rarity for horses to repeat, but this year it was practically a common occurrence! Not to say the horses weren't challenged, but it was still pretty amazing. There was one fatality, which I somehow completely missed. I must say, it's somehow hard for me to pay attention to the loud speaker when I'm there. LoL It's like I tune it out and probably because it always seems like they're saying something. And, let's face it, with almost 60,000 people there this year (better attendance than last year), you've got to tune out some sounds or it'll drive you nuts! 

At any rate, there was one fatality and the jockey was injured and had to have his spleen removed and missed the rest of his mounts. Ironically, his horse won the Classic later that day. So there was a jockey shuffle for the rest of his mounts. The race with the fatality was also a crazy race because the horse that finished first interfered with the 2nd place horse coming down the lane. The first place horse bumped into the 2nd place horse. It's not an automatic disqualification in horse racing when a horse bumps. The stewards (there are 3 or 5, I can't remember) will review the replay of the race from a head-on view and a side view to see if it's DQ worthy or not. It was a pretty controversial bump because the horse DID bump into the other, but their real concern is to decide whether that interference changed the result of the finish. Horses have been DQ'd all the way down to last before. The stewards took a LONG time to come to a decision, but finally decided by majority that the horse who finished first should be DQ'd to 2nd place (places reversed). I could have gone either way as a viewer, but my first thought was it should be changed. A bump like that could have thrown the horse out of its momentum and affected it's late charge. Inquiries can be made for all sorts of reasons, as long as the jockey or trainer felt there was a reason for an inquiry into the race. They always happen right after the race too. So you'll always hear the "hold all tickets."

Another race that was crazy was the first place horse had no doubts it won, but there was a photo finish for 2nd and 3rd. The stewards took so long in saying who won that everyone suspected it had to be a dead heat (a tie). Dead heats in horse racing are pretty rare. I mean, what are the odds two (or more) horses would hit the wire all at the same time? Horse racing still does it by a photo and not seconds. Who ever got his/her nose to touch the wire first wins (no tongues like Cars!). The stewards took so long I knew it had to be a dead heat and, sure enough, it was! The photo is definitely of the two getting there at the same time. In a dead heat, the finishers who tie share the money for the two places (in this case, 2nd and 3rd place money would be split amongst the two of them). There has been 1 dead heat for 1st and 2nd place in BC history (in 2003 with Johar and High Chaparral in the Turf). 2nd and 3rd place dead heating isn't as "big" as a 1st or 2nd. 

There was also a lot of photo finishes (like the Classic). A lot of those were much quicker as they didn't result in dead heats, but it still meant there were several races that were rather close to who won. It's always more exciting when a group of horses comes to the finish line all close to each other because there's a chance a different horse could win or it's just a battle that's fun to see, but there's also something kind of neat watching a horse trounce a field. It's not as exciting, but it's neat to see a dominant performance.

Two things they did this year was have Richie Sambora (of Bon Jovi) play on his guitar the call to post and have Kristen Chenoweth sing "The Best is Yet to Come." It was a fluke I even saw Sambora. I wanted a video of the buglers so I went over to where they would be. I'm standing there and this other dude is there! Then he plays his guitar and he's finished. It was funny. It was so short someone says something and he holds his hands out in a "sorry" motion, shrugs, and says, "That's it." LoL We all thought he was going to do something else! Turns out, he was really there just to do the call to post. I went back to my seat and went back when the buglers came out for the Classic. After they were finished, Kristen Chenoweth sang. I didn't know she was the one who was going to sing it this year so I stood there to film it. She was rather good and I liked her more than Tony Bennett who sang it last year. I must admit, it's kind of amusing when the BC does little add-ons like that because most people at the track really could care less about that stuff. There's so much else going on or people are making bets. In actuality, things like those add-ons are more for the TV audience, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong for the majority, but it's what I feel like happens. Even at the track, most people will hear it from their seats or where ever they're standing/sitting or will watch it from a jumbo screen rather than watching it in person. Not enough space to see it in person!

My one complaint, as it for any track, is the smoking. There are no smoking rules at the track. Probably because you're outside and maybe part of history, but it's kind of annoying. I only had one instance where I was tempted to say something because I was standing behind them. Other than that, it really wasn't too big of a deal. 

I am amazed, though, my feet held up. LoL I, smartly, put in some cheap shoe inserts to help my heel since I've got heal spurs and they did pretty well! I couldn't walk well later on after sitting in the car, but that was to be expected. My outfit, in general, worked out well. It was comfy enough to go the entire day. It was a LONG day. Got up at 6:45am and finally went to bed around 11pm. I was in the dress from around 8:15am to around 10pm. It was a FUN day, though!

Favorite picture of Tori and I

With that...Maybe will go again next year. Santa Anita will host for the 3rd year in a row next year. I would be highly surprised if it's there for a 4th year, though. It should go back to Churchill and will probably be an even bigger crowd there! I had a TON of fun, though. Will definitely consider going again next year and have some time to decide till tickets go on sale.

Link: Breeders' Cup 2013 Photos/Videos

Time for photos! Above is a link for all my photos and a few videos. This, obviously, are not all the videos or even photos I took, but the best or most "important" ones. I tried to put everything chronically (even the videos). I guess that's a little bit of OCD coming in because I want them in order even if there are some photos that don't need an order. LoL All the photos have descriptions too. 

Where I start ranting about politics...

Last post before SoCal, most likely! Races in a week. Sweet! Unfortunately, this will be one VERY long politically based post...First part will be about Monterey Downs. The second part will be about the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare").  

Who'd of thought my horse racing knowledge would actually come in handy for voting? I certainly never did. I thought, at most, it'd open up interesting conversations with people, but for voting? Nope. Never.

I briefly touched on it in my last post, but Monterey has a ballot measure in November's election for rejecting Monterey Downs. Monterey Downs would be an almost 550 acre project right on the border of CSU-Monterey Bay and the Fort Ord National Monument (aka BLM lands). If you check out the link, it's a really intensive project that would take years and years to be completed. It's basically creating a mini-town in the middle of Fort Ord. Rumor has it (I haven't thoroughly checked this out) that the developer for Monterey Downs is actually from Malibu, which says a little about the project. It'll have housing, shopping (a movie theater?), a throwback "downtown," tennis courts and an Olympic size pool, huge indoor arena (apparently future site of CSUMB graduations), horse park (complete with Grand Prix arena), training horse track, hotels, offices, and some land that'll be utilized as a "gateway" to the BLM lands (i.e., leave your dog, horse, or bike there while you go off and enjoy "downtown" or a trail head). The tag for Monterey Downs is "Balancing nature with everyday living." Catchy, eh?

The campaign materials are clever...So clever, in fact, I actually got the measures backwards when discussing them with a co-worker. When reading them on a ballot, I get it, but discussing them I got them backwards! Measure K supporters (pro-Monterey Downs) is using the "K" to highlight phrases like "keeping promises." Good hook phrase and with the "k" and Measure K, you get that subtle hook in to vote FOR Measure K because of keeping promises. However, the proponents to Measure K who want you to vote for Measure M (against Monterey Downs) is solely highlighting the racetrack (Monterey Downs calls it a "training facility" in its literature) and gambling. They don't mention absolutely anything else about Monterey Downs. Well, they do mention destroying thousands of coast live oaks, but that's always a sub-point after the horse track. The racetrack is a good hook too since most people are adverse to gambling and horse racing (I always think of the "noise" when I see the literature against it). Little do most citizens know that getting Thoroughbred racing at Monterey Downs is not a guarantee. So, propaganda material is pretty good on both sides and since K is voting FOR Monterey Downs and M is voting AGAINST Monterey Downs, the ballot is kind of confusing on top of it all (which, according to Measure M supporters, was Monterey Downs point to put Measure K on the ballot -- to confuse the voters).

At any rate, I at first thought Monterey Downs was JUST the racetrack since that was all that was highlighted, but when I started to look into it, it's a HUGE project that's far more reaching than just the track. I think they plan like 1,000 new homes/apartments too. It's about 550 acres, which isn't monsterly huge, but it's not small either. It's always been in the works that Fort Ord would, eventually, create a state-of-the-art equestrian center. It's been in the works forever in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. I did NOT see the racetrack (it's a racetrack, people, not a "training facility") or the housing or pool or anything else in there! Because I'm a horse racing fan and like my horses, I HAD to look it all up in detail.

The Monterey Horse Park really isn't that big of a deal (check the link for a detailed plan). It's pretty straight forward and, as I said, is not really a surprise to anyone who has remotely paid any attention to Fort Ord's future when it was decomissioned. It will be a nice facility -- if it ever gets made -- and having a Grand Prix (GP) level arena will be really cool! Pebble Beach actually holds some GP level dressage events, but their arena is absolutely horrible. I was reading one year that some of the better horses were withdrawn because the arena was so terrible. I'm sorry; I'm not sure which is sadder: The fact that a GP level event can be held at a terrible arena OR the fact Pebble Beach would ALLOW a GP level event to held on a terrible arena. Sure, fixing it wouldn't be cheap, but making a good arena would make it so the good competitors wouldn't withdraw or skip the event. Having good competitors compete would only help with notoriety and, in the future, more money! At any rate, the Peninsula is due for an upgrade of some sort. Plus, with the history of Fort Ord and all the BLM lands, it just makes sense it needs a better horse facility. Goodness knows Marina Equestrian Center could also use an upgrade. So, anyway, horse park...whatever. I do wish they'd put some seating around the GP arena...Come on. If you're going to have GP arena, you need seating!

The "training facility," though, is really interesting. It is mentioned that it could be used for future horse racing, but mostly mentions training. I guess since it's so small, it really wouldn't need a lot of stables, but it's not a dinky race track! It's going to a mile long oval, which is the same size as Santa Anita (if you do not include the grass downhill shoot). Technically, I think they're going to emulate Golden Gate Fields (GGF), which is a mile oval too. It has infield shoots to make the grass races longer, which is what the track looks like it'll have too. Del Mar has a similar looking track. Del Mar is wider than it is longer, whereas GGF is longer than it is wider (so the distance to the finish line is longer at GGF than Del Mar). The grandstand, supposedly, will only seat around 1,500 (from what I could find), which is pretty small. The arena they want to create near the track will seat almost 4xs more than that. I don't know what Del Mar or GGF seats, but I know Del Mar seats more than that by a lot and I've never been to GGF so I'm not sure. In comparison to Santa Anita, Santa Anita's grandstand is more than 10xs bigger than that. Obviously, it's a precaution in case they never DO get live racing so they don't have a huge grandstand for no reason. I'm sure if live racing was approved, they could redo the grandstand and make it bigger (Churchill redid their grandstands in the last decade to add in new "sky boxes") with any added revenue from the gambling. So, that's the track comparisons. It's not a dinky "training track."

Here's some random thoughts the general public don't know about horse racing. Horse racing at various tracks is approved yearly by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB). They meet yearly and divvy up the racing dates amongst all the tracks/regions. They also approve tracks, date changes, training facilities, and so forth. It's quite the bureaucratic process. Thoroughbred (TB) racing, harness racing, quarter horse racing, and fairs all get different race dates. TB racing, though, is typically GGF is open almost all year (seriously, it runs in thirds through the year with 1 or 2 months closure between the meets) and SoCal tracks (Hollywood, Del Mar, and Santa Anita) get split up (order: Santa Anita, Hollywood, Del Mar, Santa Anita, Hollywood). With the closing of Hollywood Park at the end of this year, the future years will be Santa Anita, Del Mar, Fairplex, Santa Anita, Del Mar. (As a random note, Santa Anita closes out the year and opens the year so they run Dec 26-well into the new year.) So, in actuality, the opening of Monterey Downs would have no impact upon the SoCal circuit. The only thing it would do is make a potential new track to run horses at. With that said, GGF would lose some of their days to allow racing at Monterey. I think the plan is the late summer to early fall and would have 45-days of live racing ("live racing" is always used to say when there are actual races there because most tracks stay open for simulcasting). Those 45 days would have to come from GGF. Not to say GGF has really any say in it, other than petitioning, but it'd be kind of weird to open a new TB track and take some of its days away.

In addition, horse racing is not at a great moment in its popularity. I can't see how suddenly adding a new horse track is going to help things in the industry. In addition, two major tracks in California in the last 5-ish years were sold off and have been (or will be) bulldozed for housing (good bye Hollywood this year and Bay Meadows has been closed for a while). Gambling isn't even the "focus" of Monterey Downs (says interviews). Monterey Downs' thing is to promote some "fun" for the students. Really? Okay. Maybe. I find it fun! Horse racing is a new experience and cheap (I suspect a LOT of $1 beer days...it's practically a track tradition) and gambling, let's face it, will be a draw. Though, it is mostly done on-line these days (I stood next to a lady at last year's BC where she was on her iPad placing her bets at the rail). Besides, if you were going to be a horse racing fan and wanted to gamble, the Monterey County Fairgrounds is an OTB (off track betting) site and even has all the stuff you'd want (simulcasting, DRF, etc, other than a live race). I guess it will be a new temptation for people to start gambling since it'll be "there" for them. On the flip side, I enjoy it just fine and I haven't dropped a dime on a bet (or a penny, since you CAN bet a penny). It might be nice to corrupt (hehehe) youngin's to racing (sans gambling) and they do plan to add internships and stuff so you never know who might fall in love with racing, but still...I just don't see how this will really do anything for the industry or CA racing. I guess, locally, it might do something (if I'm around and you can't find me, check the track), but the big picture just makes me go, "What...?" I guess it is also a new area to take in new gambling profits, but if gambling made a track...New York's Racing Association (NYRA) wouldn't be in a constant state of struggle (though, the new thing is slot machines) nor would Hollywood have closed. GGF is near Berkeley and Hollywood was in Inglewood (close to UCLA, 20 minute drive south). Sure, it's not in the backyard of a college campus, but you can't say CSUMB is a "big" campus either (yet). It's random and with the location the track is in, it's likely to never be a BIG track location. So, in actuality, the track could end up being nothing and, instead, you have a nice big oval for car shows (I'm channeling Del Mar in that reference, even though we've got Laguna Seca nearby)!

So, basically, I don't get the necessity or interest in the "training facility." Honestly, I'd keep Monterey Downs for just the Horse Park and skip the "training facility." I don't see the need in the project at all and, seriously, who thinks of creating horse racing as "something for college students to do"?! That's just weird! And this coming from a horse racing fan...who would love to live at Santa Anita. LoL So, anyway, Horse Park, yes; training facility, no. Though, I admit that I am curious to see a race track be put in...

With that said, it concerns me that with everyone on the Peninsula so in tuned with the water crisis that is the Peninsula that VERY little mention is EVER said about where all the water for the 1,000+ homes, hotels, offices, etc is going to come from. Houses take a lot of water! Hotels do too! I'd be willing to say the horse track, horse park, and offices will take less water and can be "justified" (to a point -- that infield of the race track and the turf course is going to be water intensive, so...again...track, no). In fact, I might vote down Monterey Downs purely because of the water issues. If it was just the track and horse park, I might actually have been for the plan. The businesses might not even bother me that much, but the houses really concern me. What's the point of them? To draw some immediate business? I don't know. There are places that have so much trouble getting water and suddenly this HUGE project is going to get those water rights? How weird and...political...I'm not against growth and, frankly, I agree with the whole "saving 550 acres more is moot when 20,000 plus is already saved" is a valid point, but it needs to be "smart" growth and I don't see this as smart...and it's also so random...Horse track?! Houses?! Whose idea was this? LoL Frankly, I'm likely to vote no on Monterey Downs; however, I want to read Measure M first because I still want the horse park and the veteran's cemetery. If Measure M basically makes either of those impossible in the future, I'm against that more. I do believe in the somewhat promises that were made by FORA. To say the least, the results of this election will be VERY interesting towards the future of Fort Ord.

 

Random cute bunny photo to break-up the dense topics. I have no clue what Lodie is looking for! Those are the grids of their former pen so I'm not sure if she smells them so she's looking for her old home or what, but she's only done this once and she kept looking and looking...There were more grids behind those. No empty space or anything. Weird bunny!

Now, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)...I've given this rant about my situation a few times and thought I'd blog about it. Especially since we just finished our government closure over it and, apparently, some Democrats are now thinking of waiving the fee or pushing back requirements a few weeks or months due to the sign-up issues.

I am one of those people who does not have healthcare. I haven't had healthcare for about 2.5 years now. If I've needed healthcare, I've just paid out of pocket, which, up to this point, has been cheaper than me paying for healthcare monthly. Then again, I'm also avoiding some things I probably should have gone in for also (haven't had a physical in going on 3 years, my heart palpitations (though, those have mostly gone away)). My place of employment DOES offer healthcare, but I can't afford it. With the ACA open now, underneath their stipulations, I do, in fact, qualify for the tax subsidies! So, yay! Right? No. I, unfortunately, fall into the "no man's zone" of the law.

As of right now, I qualify because my company's healthcare costs just a little more than 9.5% of my salary. Underneath ACA, that is not deemed "affordable" and I qualify for the tax subsidies. Unfortunately, with my next raise, I fall just below that 9.5%. According to the ACA, this means that I now have "affordable" healthcare by my place of employment and I no longer qualify for the tax subsidies. This basically means that ACA is pointless for me and I might as well go get healthcare from my place of employment. Unfortunately, if I could AFFORD healthcare in the first place, I would have done it years ago.

On top of all this, my next raise would be next Aug or Sept (can't remember) and the month makes a difference. ACA gives you 3 months of not having health insurance and not get fined. If my raise is in Sept, I'll be okay because I'll be kicked off ACA with my raise, but can wait till Dec to do open enrollment at my company for health insurance. The health insurance would kick in Jan 1st. So, there are my 3 months and not being fined (if you count Sept as not counting); however, if my raise in August, I'll be delinquent. So, yes, I have to figure that out. I, luckily, don't have to worry YET because I'm waiting to hear if my company's insurance will go up or not. If it goes up, I should be okay after my next raise. If not, I'll need to start thinking about the differences in plans of the ACA and whether my company's is really the better plan and just pay the extra amount. Decisions, decisions, and lots of homework...

The problem with the ACA is it doesn't take into count those who are right in that non-poverty area, but don't make enough for their bills/living area. I have a student loan I'm paying back and rent in a costly area of living. I save a little, but if I have to pay health insurance at my place of business, there goes my saving and it takes even more than that away so my standard of living is going to change for the worse. And, before anyone mentions it, I make too much to qualify for MediCal (even with the raising of the maximum to qualify) and I don't fall underneath any of the other stipulations to remove yourself from the program (one being not needing to file taxes -- I guess it's hard to charge people a fee that will be charged when you do your taxes if someone doesn't have to file taxes). Then again, just making $2/hr more would make a HUGE difference.

So, in all, I spent a good deal of time looking through the ACA, looking at the webpage, going to California's webpage, and reading the mandatory handout from my company. I got all this information so it's possible to learn it, but I have people constantly asking me questions about it because I've done my homework. Some of the population is not going to be able to figure this out. It's complicated and takes looking through pages and getting lost on trails of information. A computer is required for the work I did. What happens to those who English isn't a first language? I guess, in many cases, it's pretty straight forward (don't get offered insurance, you qualify), but if you've got a job that does offer insurance, you need to figure out the 9.5% and everything else. I would not be surprised if the fee is waived for 2014 and if it's not waived again in 2015 or at least reduced. If they waive the fee in 2014, I can guarantee people are going to go back to the "Oh, well, I don't care anymore" and stop signing up. This means that in 2015, people are going to be scrambling again and things are going to break again. Or, maybe I'm being super pessimistic about this and maybe the extra year will help work out the kinks and it'll give people a year to trickle in their sign-ups. Who knows. Though, it would be nice if the government can decide quickly. There are many people and perhaps many good things about the ACA, but I am definitely one of those few people who is completely annoyed by the ACA. Sure, it's great if you qualify, but it's the complete pits if you're in my situation.

Lots of randomness, but Gravity in 3D is a must

Well, there is just a little less than 2 weeks till I head south to see family, friends, and races! It'll be fun and a well deserved break from work. I need the break. I've had 4-days off here-and-there the past year, but I haven't had a VACATION in almost a year! I do still need to figure out jewelry and nails for my outfit...I might just wait till I'm south to figure out jewelry, but I do need to figure out my nails since I'll either need to bring my stuff south or do them before I go down. I also need to buy heal gel inserts for my shoes. I could put my orthotics in, but I'm afraid they'll super stretch the shoe so I'm going to buy cheap heal inserts to help my heal spurs for the day.

In other news, I'm officially finished with my Aquarium contract. I've been paid and everything. It feels kind of nice not having it on my mind. I've been able to read more lately, which has been nice.

I recently got into a few authors on Facebook. I've read their books for a while, but recently thought to check for them on FB. One of the authors suggested a new author and the new author is doing a review blitz where if you review her book on Amazon, she'll send you swag. I'm such a sucker for swag. LoL So I've spent the last week solidly reading her series to get to the book that needs to be reviewed to count. Luckily, she's only got 3 books out! I'll finish the 3rd book and the one that needs to be reviewed by Friday, which means I'll have read 3 books in 8 days. First one took the least and the 2nd the longest. Now, do I pick the autographed book or the cool reusable bag?! I'm thinking bag because I can get a signed book another time and the bags are a "while supplies last" thing.

I do still have my class, but it's pretty easy. I am learning a great deal from class. I've got all sorts of forms and stuff to help with grant writing. I'd like to volunteer with some organization and get some hands on experience in grant writing with someone who's done it before. Be good job training and good experience in general. Haven't really looked into any organizations around here, yet, but I think I'll look after I complete the class. Seriously, though, you have to be ORGANIZED for grant writing. Wow. I do find sometimes the class is a little hard to get into because I don't have an organization to "practice" with for writing out letters of inquiry and letters of request. Also, the more you know of your own organization, I think the easier it'd be to do the grant writing. Finding the appropriate funders and getting the proper materials in at the right time and making contact will be the hardest things once all the program/organization materials are mostly completed. I can imagine it'd take a month to get that all ready before contacting any funders, though. Crazy stuff, but I'm enjoying the learning.

In the political scene, this November's election for Monterey County will have interesting impacts on the former Fort Ord. Do we reject Monterey Downs or accept it? I need to read the working of Measures K and M VERY carefully since one rejects it and the other accepts it (or something like that, it's kind of confusing). I'm sort of torn about it the more I read about it because I absolutely think the Peninsula could benefit from a state-of-the-art equestrian facility, which the Downs would create (think Olympic host standard), but I don't like the rest of it. They'd add in hotels, housing, a sports complex, a RACETRACK (a horse-like one), and some sort of "throwback town". Not to mention a dog barn is even going in so your dog can rest after a long hike while you go eat or watch a movie (what?!). I adore my horses and, honestly, it'd be kind of cool if TB racing came to the Peninsula (though, that'd be absolutely ridiculous given the current racing economy), but this is far too big of a development. It'd butt right up against CSUMB (in its backyard, practically) and FORHA and BLM lands. I know one argument is there is already a great deal of land already preserved and we can't preserve it all, but...why is it so big?! CSUMB would benefit from the center a lot too (it's mentioned "indoor graduations" and the future CSUMB equestrian team). In some ways, they make Monterey Downs sound like it'd be the new Fairgrounds, but in a town-like atmosphere since a movie theater would also go in the Downs. I'd like to see a smaller plan, personally. There is an awful lot of housing in the plan. Sure, if you're making a world class equestrian center, you'll need hotels and offices, but what's with the housing? I don't know. It'll be interesting. There's a lot of heat on the issue. I think it'd be interesting, but I don't really like how BIG it is and will probably vote no on it. If it does pass, it's going to be a LONG time before it's finished. We'll see! Must read more into it all...I've only just started and everyone at work is confused about it. LoL

Movies...Not a whole lot right now, but I'm liking a lot in theater, but I'm adverse to watching dramas in theater because of the expense. We'll see. Long reviews for 2/3 movies because there's a lot to be said. :)

Much Ado About Nothing (Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof) - Whedon had always wanted to do Much Ado About Nothing and he ended up filming it at his house in California. The cast was fun to see because a lot of them had worked with him previously so it was fun picking them out. I thought it was good, but it was kind of weird seeing it in a modern setting and Shakespearean language. Other than abridging it, he's pretty faithful to the play. I liked the acting and the movie (it's in black and white), but it's not something I would normally watch. I mostly watched it because it's Whedon and I liked the cast ensemble. Not bad, but not terrific either. Grade: B

After Earth (Will Smith, Jaden Smith) - Not having read much about the film prior, I was informed right before I watched it that the movie was based in Scientology. Not really knowing so much about Scientology I sort of pushed the information aside in my head and watched the film. After watching it, I really researched Scientology and I can see why people say that; however, it's a sci-fi film and Scientology was created by a sci-fi author. This means that the movie's themes are not, specifically, Scientology brainwashing. I could probably name a few other films where the same themes play out. I will say that if you DO know Scientology and the Smiths one might NOT be able to ignore the themes, but I had no problems. The main themes are about getting past our fears and moving on from our traumatic pasts, which can be found in several movies. On the other hand, in Scientology, that is called "auditing." I will say it's much more prevalent than in most movies about not being fearful, but it's nothing new either. So, to me, it didn't affect my watching the movie at all. With that said, this was a disappointment of a film. There was no way I was seeing it in theater since it's a Shyamalan film and he totally burned me on Last Airbender (I will NEVER forgive him for that!), but I wanted to see it because of the Smiths. So, my main conclusion: Not a terrible Shyamalan film; a terrible Smiths film. I didn't enjoy the acting from Jaden and I know he isn't a terrible actor given I liked him in Pursuit to Happyness and he didn't do too bad in Karate Kid. Will is up for debate. His character is REALLY stiff and hard to get an emotional attachment to so I'm a little ambivalent about him, which you can either say is good acting or not. The story was also highly predictable and very linear. There wasn't any real exploration or "new" aspects to the story at all, which made it kind of boring. At least the time kind of went by quickly...? Grade: C (maybe C-)

Gravity (Sandra Bullock, George Clooney) - By far the ONE movie EVERYONE has to see in 3D in theaters. Avatar was great in 3D in theaters because the movie was made for it and had great special effects so the 3D was useful and beneficial, which, to me, up till this point made it the best 3D feature film. Unfortunately, Gravity takes that spot for me. This movie HAS to be seen in 3D to get the full effect of being in space. Most films you watch in 3D and it's just a depth perception thing, but Cuaron utilized it so it made you feel like you were in space. It's hard to describe, but the special effects were absolutely amazing and it was terrific when things in space would float out further to you than the actor to give you that great zero gravity feeling. I guess the difference with Avatar is you can enjoy the film in 2D and the 3D just made it more fun, but the 3D in Gravity puts you into space and watching it in 2D will loose an entire aspect of the movie like losing one of our senses. Outside of the 3D, the special effects were really good. If it doesn't win best special effects at the Oscars, I'd be really surprised. I think my favorite effect, which wasn't really a special effect, but cinematography was when the camera was outside Bullock's helmet and then zooms in and then you figure out you're inside her helmet and then it zooms back out. It was really subtle and good. The acting was also really good. I enjoyed Bullock and Clooney. There were a few moments I wanted to strangle Bullock, but it wasn't like I wouldn't probably be doing the same thing she'd be doing. With the acting and special effects excellent, I had issues with the story. Actually, I had major issues with the story. First off, the movie is only 1.5 hours long and I felt EVERY minute of it. It's intense. There is one point where things relax and I actually got bored. I was sitting there trying to figure out how much was left in the movie because I was so bored. Then everything that could possibly go wrong goes wrong. There were people sitting behind me commenting at certain points and normally that would bother me, but I agreed with them on everything! If you watch it, you'll understand what I mean -- especially the very, very end. The end practically became laughable because of the rest of the movie. At any rate, I think it's worth the theater cost to see in 3D and I think the acting and special effects carry the entire movie. The movie wins absolutely nothing in writing, in my opinion, but it could win all sorts of awards for directing, cinematography, special effects, and acting. Would I see it again? Probably not, but one of my favorite films of the year. Grade: A

Trips are so exciting!

...And so expensive.

Tickets, clothing, travel expense, etc, etc. Not to mention the urge to buy a new digital camera so I can have AMAZING photos of the races. I almost got a new digital camera a few years ago (a DSLR camera), but opted against it. My digital camera did okay last year. It wasn't bad, but I didn't always get "crisp" photos because I zoomed so much. Sometimes it's just needed, especially on the back stretch when you want the entire field and you're standing on the rail. Oh man, I can't wait for that. It was FANTASTIC watching the races on the back stretch. You can actually hear the horses running by and see them without a sea of people in front of you...So excited. At any rate, no new camera. I just can't splurge THAT much, but I am going to bring BOTH digital camera batteries. I took so many photos and video that I could barely even photo the final race because my battery died and then I used my phone for some photos, which almost killed my phone battery. So...This year...Both camera batteries AND I know that Santa Anita has horrible cell reception so I won't even bother with my phone and won't need it for a camera. I'm excited! I do need to figure out my shoes...I bought a pair of shoes (relatively cheap at $10) because the PERFECT pair of shoes I found (they match my hat!) weren't available in any of the stores. I came home, looked them up, and found a pair available on-line, but shipping and cost, they come to about $22. Do I really need the perfect pair of shoes for my hat or should I stay with my "workable" shoes, which work with everything, but aren't "perfect"? I've got about a week to decide if the extra money is worth it or not. The tickets arrived, though, and I got my cardigan for my dress and plane ticket. So...It's coming together! It's going to be good. :)

In the mean time, I'm taking a non-credit certificate program for grant writing at Oregon State University. OSU offers the class through the university, but there's an organization that actually sets up the class. I had a really difficult time paying for the class because of my lack of reading and being tired (tip: don't pay for things when you're really, really tired...), but I FINALLY got the class paid for and I'm taking it (honestly, for a digital class, my payment difficulties seemed absolutely ridiculous). It's been interesting. I never realized how much work really goes into grant writing. Wow! To be really prepared, it's nuts! Then again, a lot of the work is just getting your end of things in order (statements, etc), but knowing what materials the potential funder needs/wants will definitely take time. Also, finding funders will take time and shouldn't be kept to just internet searching. At any rate, just 3 weeks into the class, but it's interesting. The only thing that determines if you get the certificate is your final so I'm not always doing all the assignments, but I am making sure I do the quizzes (only 5 questions) and doing all the reading. I am reading my fellow classmates discussion stuff too.

Work's been an interesting roller coaster this week...Can't really say much about it, but it's been interesting...In the end, things are pretty much the same. It was a long week and a week I seemed to be tired everyday. Oh well. Continuing my job search, tyvm...

With that, movies! I actually watched a movie I rather liked this week.

The Great Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire) - It's been a long time since I've read Gatsby, so it's hard for me to compare it to what the book is. It does make me want to break out my AP English notes when I read the book my junior year in high school. I will say, I'm a little disappointed in it. Baz Luhrmann (Australia, Moulin Rouge, Romeo & Juliet, Strictly Ballroom) is known for being opulent and over the top and the trailer showed this opulence. It's definitely opulent and over the top, but it gets bogged down in the sad moments and mostly just ends up being rather depressing and misses the interest of the book. I may not remember the book, but I don't remember hating it or finding it boring (we read it in 9 days -- a chapter a day). It sort of drags in certain scenes too. I at first thought Maguire was a good Nick and Mulligan a good Daisy, but I'm not so sure now. DiCaprio was a decent Gatsby. I liked him a little less the more I watched. He isn't bad and, in ways, sort of saves the movie, but I guess I felt like it was too "expected" of DiCaprio? Joel Edgerton who plays Tom was good, though. I wish Baz had just gone all the way, I suppose, with his vision of the film. The music in the beginning was kind of weird too. I like the Florence + the Machine song (of course) and I do enjoy the "party" song, but some of the rest just didn't work as well. At any rate, I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think I'd readily recommend it. Grade: C

Redemption (Jason Statham, Agata Buzek) - Predictable and kind of funny since he ends up falling with a nun, but the movie doesn't have a happily-ever-after ending and the middle of it is the only non-depressing part of the movie. The rest of it is rather dower. Wasn't a bad Statham film, though. I've seen worse. I did sort of like the redemption part of it, but the end kind of threw it out of the window too. Grade: C

Fill the Void (Hadas Yaron, Yiftach Klein) - I'm still a little confused by the movie. I liked it, but the falling-or-each other part was a little mystifying to me. I'm not in doubt at the end that they truly love each other, but I am a little mystified how it happened. I know part of it is the family connection, but it was a little odd in that sense. With that said, I liked the movie. There's something about it that works. It's gentle, not pushy, artsy, and, yet, is a movie that everyone can understand even though it's set within a very orthodox Hasidic Jewish community. Family obligations and wanting to be loved are not things that religion or nationality discriminate against. Arranged marriages are going out the door, but this didn't feel the same like you normally see. Glad I watched it, but not sure how often I would recommend it. It's one of those foreign films not many people will watch. Grade: B-

The Kings of Summer (Nick Robinson, Gabriel Basso, Moises Arias) - I adored this. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. It has a somewhat flavor as Moonrise Kingdom (the running away from your weird family and living off the land) or even Stand By Me, but this was about growing up, finding who you are, independence, friendship, family, and summer. I really liked it. The part I did NOT enjoy -- I have to mention this for my animal rights friends -- is the killing, skinning, and eating of a rabbit. I did not enjoy that scene and it IS the only incident and it's a relatively important scene, but it bothered me. It is frivolous and silly and could have been better, but I still liked it. Grade: B

Imposter (Documentary) - I'm not sure why I wanted to watch this, but watch it I did. It leaves an interesting opening at the end about the family. I thought it was a good documentary that showed everything that happened, all the speculations, and the final outcome. It was played out to be a bit of a mystery with the family and how they were so convinced that their son had returned. It's just not my normal thing to watch and I was a little bored through it... Grade: C+

This is the End (Seth Rogan, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill) - What in the world?! I knew it was going to be absolutely ridiculous and far beyond ridiculous with some laughs thrown in and maybe some other bad humor jokes; it met all those expectations, but I still at the end went, "What in the world?!" I think the best thing about the movie is how how the actors play their named selves, but they're playing different versions of themselves. Because they're playing different versions of themselves, there are a lot of jokes that revolve around their previous acting gigs. Like they poke fun at Emma Watson playing Hermione and James Franco in 127 Hours or the ones in Pineapple Express. There are a lot of cameos by various actors/singers, which was kind of fun to see. Knowing what these actors had played in does help you a little in getting some of the jokes. With that said, this movie was absolutely ridiculous and almost sacrilege! Though, the end with the Backstreet Boys in Heaven was rather hilarious. I did enjoy that, but the rest of it is not my thing. Grade: C- (for the laughs)

Dredd (Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby) - My housemate watched it and liked it (he's a comic book fan). It came out on DVD earlier this year and I contemplated renting it, but ended up not. My co-worker recently watched it and absolutely enjoyed it so I decided to watch it because it's streaming everywhere now (Netflix and Amazon Prime). I liked it! I think it's just about the perfect length (1.5 hours) and I think Urban did a good Dredd. I also liked the evolution of Thirlby's Judge Anderson. It is rather violent and bloody, but it's not more than like Wanted. I thought it was better than it's been given credit for and I wouldn't mind seeing a Dredd 2, but I don't know if that'll happen since it didn't do very well in theaters. It's not quite a movie I would want to own, but it is available on streaming and I think, at some point, I would watch it again. Grade: C+/B-

Just 18 more movies to 100!

Fall TV shows...Thanks Hulu?

For whatever reason, during my time in grad school, I started watching a LOT of TV shows. I was keeping up on something like 20 shows during the Fall season. That's nuts! I kept up with them really well until last Fall. For whatever reason, I lost interest. Shows I had watched seasons on end, I just lost interest in watching. I thought it was just the fall. I got behind and it's hard catching up on so many TV shows once you fall behind. I thought I'd catch up again during the winter. It didn't happen. Then I thought I'd catch up and keep up with the summer shows. It didn't happen. So...Here is the start to another fall season. I had no hopes in keeping up, but who knows...Well, week 1 of fall season is in the history books and I've watched all of 3 fall shows already! How have I done this? All thanks to Hulu...

I've kept my subscription with them all this time. So far, it's been the most useful $8/month for a digital service. Netflix is nice and all to get the DVDs if you want them, but since I keep up with new movies and not old ones, I have no need for Netflix's DVD mail service. Redbox works fine for that. Since I don't stream movies that often anyway, Netflix and Redbox instant are not necessary and if I do want to watch an old streaming video at random, I've got AmazonPrime. I utilize AmazonPrime for the 2-day shipping, not the Instant, which puts me into the "fringe benefit" category of Amazon instant. So, in all, Hulu has been the best $8/month for me. I'm mostly paying for the service because I can watch Hulu on my iPad or iPhone anywhere, which is worth it to me. I don't really pay for cable TV (my TV hasn't been hooked up in 1.5 years and we pay the BASIC TV channels so I would get like 15 channels -- only wanted the internet, really) so the $8/month makes up for that.

Since many shows are streaming on Hulu, I can watch them the next day on Hulu! USA Network is still behind on shows (like a week or so) and that's annoying, but at least the rest I can watch right away. I will say, Hulu needs to do more commercials, though. The fact I got the Subway $5 sub song in my head after one night of watching 3 shows means they played it way too much! At any rate, this season is all about Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Dracula (starts in Oct), and Sleepy Hollow for me. I will look into Almost Human, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Ironside, Masterchef Junior, Once Upon a Time in Wonderland (really doubtful about this), Reign, The Blacklist, The Crazy Ones, and The Tomorrow People. Of the latter list, mostly The Crazy Ones and The Blacklist I'm looking forward to watching. This past week was the "official" start to fall TV shows, but next week is the really BIG week for shows to start.

This week I watched only Bones, Ironside (early pilot release on Hulu), Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and Sleepy Hollow. Ironside will be interesting, I guess. I know it's been called a procedural crime-drama, but the creators are saying it's going to be character driven by Ironside who is a wheelchair bound detective. First one was okay. We'll see. Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a workplace comedy so think The Office, but a police station instead. They quasi-solve crimes during the half-hour too. First one wasn't too bad. Not sure how much I'll keep up with it. I'm not a big comedy fan, so we'll see. Sleepy Hollow was interesting. They have an interesting premise, but we'll see the direction they take with it. I'm mostly worried the main story will drag on forever. My thought is they'll finish the main story this season and pick up another next, but we don't know, yet. The premise, at this point, is with the four horsemen and Revelations from the Bible. Should be interesting. Pilot wasn't bad, but we'll see.

I've noticed there are fewer crime-dramas and more period or fantasy shows (e.g., Dracula, Reign, Almost Human, etc). Sure, some of them are also crime shows like The Blacklist or Ironside, but you definitely don't see as many as you did 3 years ago. Some were cancelled after last season (e.g., Body of Proof, The Glades, CSI: NY, etc), but I think with the popularity of Once Upon a Time, Game of Thrones, Sherlock, Downton Abbey, etc, we're heading towards more "edgy" and character driven TV shows (The Blacklist and last year's The Following are prime examples of "edgy" crime-dramas). Not to mention the popularity of throwing old into the new (e.g., Sleepy Hollow). We're also looking for the next "sci-fi" show. Fringe concluded last season and no one has been able to replace Lost. Revolution seems to be going okay. I started it last year and never made it past the 2nd episode (not on purpose). I stopped trying after I made it through some other sci-fi show and they cancelled it!

I am hoping there are some shows this season where I really like them because not a lot carried over from last year and shows like Bones, Criminal Minds, CSI, etc are becoming "old" and every season that passes makes me nervous they'll be cancelled soon. I still haven't recovered from Numb3rs ending. One of my favorite shows and I still rewatch the entire show yearly. At any rate, we'll see how the fall season goes!

In other news, Monday is my presentation for the Aquarium. Should go well. After that, I'm pretty much finished. Reading is going up and down in weird spikes...I think I'm simply adrift right now on what to read...I've tried rereading old books, tried new ones, tried anthologies, etc. It's been a weird reading week...and it's not like I don't want to read anything; I just can't find anything I really want to read? Weird.

Movies! Lots of movies this week I wanted to see...

Epic (Colin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson, Amanda Seyfried, etc) - Decent animation. Not the most original of stories. At least it wasn't Fern Gully or anything. It's not the most happiest of endings...Or, in general. I mean, it starts off kind of sad and then sure, everything is saved, but the two main characters have an awkward "happily ever after" story...I don't know. It wasn't the greatest animation story. There are some slightly funny parts that are alluded more towards adults, but it's a forgettable movie. I will ask one thing...Why is it when you have "little" people type movies (i.e., fairies) the soundtracks always take on a Gaelic sound to it? Must be the folklore origination. I like it, but it's kind of interesting. Grade: C

The Bling Ring (Katie Chang, Israel Broussard, Emma Watson, etc) -Wow, this was really boring. I thought it was going to be more interesting, but after watching it after World War Z and just watching it in general, it was really boring. I'm not sure it gets across the point it was trying to make either. Most people's worries is it was going to glorify the crimes and it kind of does...? I don't know. They didn't get hit with a super harsh punishment for as much as they stole. I did think Katie Chang was a good actress. I didn't really like Watson in this. I've liked her in every film I've watched of hers, but this one didn't really do it for me. Maybe it was the role...She comes off pretentious and fake and that is her character. Hm. Maybe it was good acting...? At any rate, it was really a dud of a film and I don't think it got anything across at all. Definite waste of time to watch. I learned more from Googling the crimes than the movie. Grade: D

World War Z (Brad Pitt) - Wasn't sure about this, but it actually lived up to expectations and maybe even surprised me by how much I actually enjoyed it. It's not great, though, and fighting zombies wasn't the point of the movie (not that I wanted it to be about fighting zombies). The point of the movie is Pitt's character is trying to find how it started (patient zero) and, in the process, comes up with an idea to "camouflage" healthy humans from being attacked by zombies. In ways, it's more "scientific" than action. It's like if you watched Contagion, but instead the virus turns you into a zombie. It wasn't a bad movie on its own, but it wasn't great either. It sort of just passed the time and sent you on a world trip (starts in PA, takes you to NJ, then S Korea, Israel, Wales, and Nova Scotia). I will say, after recently watching Oblivion and watching World War Z, between Pitt and Cruise, I prefer Pitt as an actor. Grade: C (perhaps C+ purely because I liked it more than I thought I would)

Disconnect (Jason Bateman, Paula Patton, Alexander Skarsgard, etc) - What an oddly depressing and interesting movie. The premise is how the internet disconnects us from ourselves and, at the same time, shows how destructive it can be to those around us (and further disconnects us). They're interconnecting stories (some more than others) and is along the lines of Crash. I liked Crash. I know there are many who don't, but I like the interconnecting stories. This one does it too, but it has a majority of depressing stories. The acting was good and the cast of actors I enjoyed. Obviously, the Internet doesn't have to lead to any of the things it caused in the movie, but you can also see it staring at us too. It is a little dramatic and stylized. The end kind of dragged on as everyone's consequences finally come to head. I admit I was so bored with the ending I actually fast forwarded through parts of it because it was so slow. It's not like you couldn't see any of them coming to light a mile away. It's interesting and good acting, but the story does drag and is a little shallow. Grade: C

Bless Me, Ultima (Luke Ganalon, Miriam Colon, Benito Martinez) - Had to watch this since I liked the book when I read it as a sophomore in high school. I think Ganalon did a good acting job, but there also wasn't a lot for him to "act" too. He does a lot of "staring" and contemplation when things occur around him. I thought Colon was a good Ultima. I read one review where they thought the movie doesn't have the same "punch" as the book, but if you read the book, you'd probably enjoy the movie more. I think I'm definitely in that category. I think if you hadn't read the book, the movie will seem less interesting and make you lose the deeper intrigue in the book. At the heart of the book or movie is a coming of age story, but it also debates mysticism and religion. I think it really touches the surface of the book in that regard. With that said, I thought the movie was well done from my perspective. I enjoyed it and glad I watched it. I wish it was a little deeper, but you can't expect that in a movie. Grade: C+/B-

Based on my rough count, looks like I'll make 100 movies by the end of the year and that's not including watching any in theater. It'll all come down to when they show up at RedBox.

Here's my rough estimate:

1. Fill the Void
2. Great Gatsby
3. Imposter
4. The Kings of Summer
5. Redemption
6. This is the End
7. After Earth
8. The Colony
9. 2 Guns
10. Before Midnight
11. The Croods
12. Elysium
13. Hangover Part III
14. Heat
15. The Internship
16. Lone Ranger
17. Immortal Instruments: City of Bones
18. Paranoia
19. Planes
20. RIPD
21. Red 2
22. Turbo
23. White House Down

Those 23 movies would take me to 100! I'm sure there will be some other "indies" in there too. Every time I watch an indie, I find another 1 or 2 to watch from the trailers. I still feel like it's been a dud of a year for me, though. I think watching all these movies is making me more critical. LoL I do appreciate a well acted drama, though. At any rate, on to the end of the movie season where it will bring Thor and Hunger Games and Hobbit!

Now I'm off to paint my nails... :)