Mary Mary, Quite Contrary

Mary's Top 10 Anticipated Films for 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:36:00 +0000

1. Sex and the City: The Movie
I own the entire series on DVD. I've watched every episode at least 10 times. I've memorized the lines and the clothing. Need I explain more why this movie is Numero Uno on my list?

2. Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Indiana Jones trilogy is one of the best in film history, but this 4th installment of America's favorite fedora-wearing, whip-lashing archeologist took nearly 2 decades to develop and produce. TWO DECADES! The anticipation!

3. Wall-E
Pixar has yet to make a bad movie (although Cars was merely "good", as opposed to "excellent").

4. The Dark Knight
Batman Begins was a good film, but I have feeling this will be even better, especially with Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker.

5. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
I liked the "Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe" a lot. Hoping this matches the quality of the first.

6. The Forbidden Kingdom
Dude! Jet Li AND Jackie Chan together in a martial arts movie!

7. Mamma Mia!
I am a sucker for any musical film. I am also a fan of Abba music. Combine the two . . .

8. Star Wars: The Clone Wars
See this film, I must.

9. TBD

10. TBD

As of 2/14/2008

Mary's Top 25 Fashion Pet Peeves

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:05:00 +0000

There was an interesting post on the "Manolo for the Big Girl" blog (linked from shoeblogs.com) about what fashion fads should just die. There were many varied responses. Being obsessed and opinionated about fashion myself, I wanted to share my response on that blog but I was concerned that being NOT plus-size (for whom that particular blog is catered towards), my opinions might cause the other readers to chase after me with pitchforks and torches.

And so, here is my list of fashion pet peeves (in no particular order):

1. Crocs
2. Uggs (an abomination, and there should be NO reason to wear them when it's 90 degrees outside)
3. bubble-hem skirts
4. distressed jeans (why would you want to pay extra money to have your jeans looked like they've been worn by someone else?)
5. thongs
6. high-waisted jeans
7. puffy jackets/coats
8. pointy-toed boots
9. platform shoes
10. anything showing your midriff
11. booties
12. pants with anything written across the butt
13. puff sleeves
14. cheap shoes
15. sequins
16. anything from Wal-Mart
17. knit-fabric gauchos
18. blouson shirts
19. stonewashed jeans with matching jacket
20. oversized slouchy sweaters
21. animal prints of ANY kind
22. trucker hats
23. fake/counterfeit bags
24. anything furry
25. 80s-styled Ray-Ban sunglasses

Eh, turns out I have more than just 25 pet peeves (will be continually updated as I find that just disgust/astonish/dismay me):

26. exposed bra straps
27. oversized handbags
28. dyed hair (yes, you heard me, I don't liked dyed hair--it's very fake)

Blizzcon

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:58:00 +0000

I just recently went to one of the biggest videogame ~~dorkfests~~ conventions, Blizzcon. Since I am a huge, huge fan of "World of Warcraft", I couldn't pass up the opportunity to drive down to Anaheim and spend 2 days in a roomful of overweight, anti-social males who hadn't take a shower in a week (kidding! Well ok, I'm actually not kidding about the overweight and stinky part). But seriously, I had never been to any sort of convention like this before, and I was interested in listening to the developer discussions about the game and other stuff. Plus, they were handing out awesome goody bags for each attendee, which included a code to redeem an in-game murloc costume and a beta key for a future Blizzard game (yes I am a nerd).

Quite a few people at the convention decided to dress up (presumably for the costume contest). Here's a picture of what I thought were the most impressive costumes:

Aside from the discussions, I also bought myself new WoW soundtracks, played the WoW trading card game, listened to some awesome orchestral WoW music, and endured the apparent un-funniness of Jay Mohr--I'm a bit too old for potty humor. The convention had a lot of computers set up for game play, so I got to try out a little bit of the newly announced WoW expansion and the unreleased Starcraft II, where I learned you should never go up against 13-year-old boys (because you will lose).

This sh*t is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A!

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:31:00 +0000

I saw Gwen Stefani in concert at the Shoreline Amphitheatre last night! It was awesome! Of course, it would have been more awesome had I been able to get better seats, but oh well.

Gwen performing "Wind It Up", her homage to The Sound of Music's "Lonely Goatherd". Yes, unfortunately, I was *that* far away :(

Near the end of her set, she got carried by two bodyguards (or whatever you call them) from the stage to the section I was sitting at (yay!), and then she performed "Cool" right there!

It was a good show overall, but while I like Gwen's music, I love No Doubt even more. She said that her next album was going to be a No Doubt album. Definitely something to look forward to!

Nail clipping on public transit--why???

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:21:00 +0000

I was sitting on a Caltrain on my way home from work yesterday, reading a book and minding my own business, when I heard a sound behind me that shattered my peace--the sound of fingernails being clipped in public.

People clipping their fingernails on public transit is my number one pet peeve. Why?

1. The incessant "clip-clip" is so annoying.
2. Fingernail clippings go flying everywhere, no matter how careful you are.
3. Lots of germs and dirt reside under fingernails--I do not want to be sitting in your germs and dirt.

In short, it is disgusting and downright inconsiderate. Apparently, some people don't seem to realize this. What is it about a train or bus ride that compels them to pull out their clippers and start giving themselves a public transit manicure?

It took all of my will power yesterday to not whirl around in my seat and tell the woman behind me to STOP. But perhaps I should have, I would have been doing the public a favor.

"You've got two empty halves of coconut, and you're banging them together!"

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:26:00 +0000

Recently, while perusing various articles on Wikipedia (otherwise known as my #1 source of procrastination), I decided to read up on "Shrek the Third". I had already seen the film, but I wasn't really satisfied with it. While reading the entry, I came upon an article about how Eric Idle (of Monty Python fame) was considering suing the makers of Shrek because of the coconut gag the third film had borrowed from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

For those of you who have seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", you know what I mean. For those of you who haven't, well, it's a damn shame you haven't seen the film (go see it!).

"Shrek the Third" starts out with Prince Charming, who appears to be riding through a forest, when in fact, he is just galloping on a hobby horse at a dinner show. A stagehand is using coconuts to make clip cloppity noises. And that, apparently, was enough for Idle (who voices the character Merlin) to storm out of the "Shrek the Third" premiere.

Idle claimed that he was considering suing the makers of Shrek because he was unaware the coconut gag would appear in the film. He was angry that they had "stolen" their joke.

This is ridiculous. The Shrek films are ALL about parody. All three films have had multiple gags/jokes/parodies lifted from pop culture and the media. The parodies are what make the films (well, at least the first 2) so entertaining. Even when told that the gag was put in as a "mark of admiration", Idle lashes out, “Do you think if I stole your wallet that’d be homage to your money?"

And what exactly was "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? It was a PARODY of the King Arthur legend, for Christ's sake.

What a hypocrite. I've lost respect for Eric Idle.

Arrrghhh! 'Pirates 3' be a disappointment!

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:59:00 +0000

After 10 months of anxiously waiting the third installment of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series, I was so excited to revel in another swashbuckling grand adventure of Captain Jack and company last Thursday evening.

Or so I thought.

Previously, I had written about how the director, screenwriters, and cast all acknowledged that "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" would be confusing. Well, as it turns out, they weren't kidding!

About half way through the movie, I realized that I had little idea of what was going on. Characters kept shifting alliances and I couldn't tell who was on whose side. It also didn't help that the film had developed about (seemingly) a hundred different storylines and I had a hard time keeping track of the plot development. Boy, no wonder critics panned the film.

Worst of all, the film is devoid of the wit and charm that made the first film, "PotC: Curse of the Black Pearl" so wonderful. Humor seemed somewhat forced, replaying some of the gags from the previous films (though it was nice to see again Mulroy and Murtogg, the two British soldiers from the first film who argued each other about the existence of the Black Pearl). Captain Jack, while always the charming scallywag, just did not have the "zing" from the original film. It was obvious that the writers did not focus on character development. But then again, how can you when you've got a hundred different plot lines to deal with?

On the plus side, the film began to pick up after about 2 hours, culminating into a grand (but perhaps borderline ludicrous) maelstrom battlescene. Without giving away the ending, I wasn't disappointed by it, but it was anti-climatic and left me somewhat dissatisfied. And of course, it left the series open to a possible 4th film.

So there you have it. I was feeling sad as I left the theater--despite the fact that the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy was disappointing, there would be no more stories of Captain Jack (unless of course, he signs on to do a 4th film).

Oh well. The DVD comes out this December :)

Entertainment Weekly's sneak peek at PotC3

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:52:00 +0000

Anyone who knows me knows that I am OBSESSED with "Pirates of the Caribbean". The first film, "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" was so fun and wonderful and Johnny Depp was awesome in his Oscar-nominated performance as the delicious Captain Jack Sparrow.

The second film, "Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest" was good, but its somewhat confusing storyline was disappointing for me. But then again, the first movie was so awesome, I naturally had high expectations for its sequel.

Now that the debut of the third film, "Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End" is nearing, I had high hopes for what might be the final installment of PotC. Perhaps the director and screenwriters had learned from what I thought were mistakes of PotC 2 and produce a swashbuckling finale to the series. However, after picking up this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly (Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow on the cover--I HAD to pick it up :P), I learned that this was not the case.

The director, Gore Verbinski, and the screenwriters, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, acknowledged the complexity of previous film and why critics had slammed it. But they didn't change anything for the 3rd film. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer even attempts to explain the story, but ends up with a "It's a little confus--".

Bad sign. Not what I wanted to hear.

Orlando Bloom: "'Someone asked me, 'So tell us about your character's arc in the third movie.' I said, 'Dude, the writers can't even explain the third movie.'''

Uh oh.

Verbinski tries to justify the apparent complexity of the film: ''I don't mind if people find it confusing. I don't want to dumb it down to where it's just processed cheese and you're not thinking about it afterwards.'' He and the screenwriters insist nothing was done to take the criticisms of Dead Man's Chest into account when production resumed on At World's End. The films had been ''designed for multiple viewings,'' says Rossio. ''You couldn't do a course correction. That presumes that the course was off.''

Why oh why would you do this? It's not just the critics--I didn't like the second film as much as the first because I thought it was confusing too. And not just me--many of my friends agreed with me. Even my dad, of all people, didn't like it as much because it was too dark and not as entertaining.

Anyhow, the rest of the article is here.

Intro Post!

noreply@blogger.com (Mary) — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:43:00 +0000

Hello! This is my brand-spanking-new blog and it will have postings about the news, fashion, tech gadgets, and entertainment.