Thursday, February 19, 2009

Springsteen's The Wrestler video

First, he was snubbed by the Oscars for what might be the very best song, ever, written for a movie. Then, that song was left off the soundtrack to The Wrestler in favour of some Whitesnake tune from 1986. But try watching this video and then shaking the song from your head. This is not only the best song ever written for a movie (having seen the movie puts it in much more poignant context), this video is also the best trailer for a movie, ever, and it's a really good promotional video for "Mickey Rourke as Best Actor".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK6smwWg8bc

Personally, I'm still pulling for Richard Jenkins for Best Actor. But nothing I've seen has made me think about changing my mind quite as much as that video. A reminder of what an amazing movie that is, and what an amazing songwriter Springsteen is. And now I have to pull for M.I.A. to win Best Song for "O Saya".

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Carrie Underwood at a Sens game

Mike Fisher must have had something to prove to his girlfriend, because he actually showed up for a game while she was watching in Nashville. Second star! My stars...speaking of his girlfriend though, if she is THIS camera-shy, I think she may have chosen the wrong career. Wasn't she one o' dem American Idol girls?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsIslnig9pQ

Either that or she lost a contact and had to find it really, really fast.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Okay. Creepy doesn't begin to cover this...

I get painting your face to look like KISS. Ok, that's a lie. I don't get painting your face to look like KISS, but at least I have a vague understanding of why someone would do that. This, on the other hand, escapes me completely - painting KISS on your face. There is a difference. Check this weirdo out:

http://www.mychemicaltoilet.com/2009/02/gene_simmons_dolly_parton_appear_on_a_christians_face.html

I have always found face-paint to be a vageuly creepy thing anyway. Like kids who get whiskers and tiger-print on their faces at the community fair. But this guy takes it to a level I had previously thought unimaginable. I have never thought that anyone would aspire to be the World's Greatest Shadow Puppeteer, or the World's Most Freaky Face Paint Artist, but here you go. The Dolly Parton bit is freakiest of all.

Football or soccer? Really, we have to choose?

Something else I don't get - why do we have to choose between football and soccer? Where did this debate begin? And who is it that's suggesting Major League Soccer is the only option for Ottawa? Those who favour soccer over football make only one suggestion that backs up their claim - Ottawa has never been able to support football enough to hang on to a CFL team. What they seem to miss in that argument is this question - if we couldn't support football, (and the reasoning is mostly that the CFL is perceived as a minor football league), then what makes us think we can support MLS (which is even more of a minor league when it comes to soccer than the CFL is when it comes to football)? Where is the logic there?

The papers this morning are talking about the 67s, and the suggestion that were Lansdowne to disappear - were Frank Clair stadium to be torn down - the 67s would necessarily disappear as well. And I was surprised - where is this talk of tearing down Frank Clair? If we pick soccer over football and build a new stadium out in Kanata, are we then going to take a wrecking ball to Lansdowne? Is that the idea? And if so, isn't this whole debate a no-brainer? We already have a stadium. One that needs significant repairs, no doubt, but it exists. It's there. It's downtown, where stadiums for sports ought to be in order to affect local business in an optimal way. It would be cheaper to fix Frank Clair than it would be to build an entire new stadium. and what a shame it would be if we just bulldozed the place because it wasn't being used. How about this - even if we choose soccer over football, why not use Lansdowne anyway? And by extension of that logic, why not have both, anyway?

Ummm...so what?

Here is something I really, really don't understand. Why do naked pictures of celebrities merit consideration when they are snapped by some paparazzo? I get it in some circumstances - Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan getting out of a car with no panties - that's kind of a story. Kind of. And maybe there are those who care. I don't count myself among them. But this one - I am starting to see dozens of sites talking about the *gasp* naked Naomi Watts pictures! Here is Naomi Watts walking around - and she's naked! Okay...that would be kind of neat, if no one had ever seen her naked before...

But how many people know who Naomi Watts is? Those who have seen, say King Kong? And even then, I bet most people who know her only from King Kong are barely aware of her name. Those who know her as an actress, and are therefore interested in Naomi Watts (and I count myself among those people, because she is a terrific actress) know her from say, Eastern Promises. Where we get a full-frontal Viggo Mortensen. Or from Mulholland Drive, where we get a full frontal...Naomi Watts. In one of the all time great movie lesbian scenes with Laura Harring. So...after that, who cares if we get to see some candid shot on a balcony? There must be something I'm not getting here.

If you really care about the naked pictures, you can google them. I couldn't be bothered finding them again to provide a link here. And while you're at it, you can google (as I'm sure many of you already have) "Angelina Jolie naked". Or, you can just rent Mulholland Drive and Gia. Two fine movies, by the way.