caulfield12

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) Westpheldt and Hamm aren't married, they are "life partners" Okay, it's all too confusing for me, with Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis, Brangelina, common law marriages, etc. I guess, in the end, that's the point of the movie...that you don't have to be married to someone to have a great relationship, that throwing the label of marriage or conforming to societal expectations ruins the romantic part and just gives you responsibility and bills and arguments and too much of reality.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 09:03 AM) I got to see it for free a few weeks ago. Too talky, is a good label. I liked it until the end which felt like it totally sold out. Also would of liked to have seen more of Hamm and Wiig's characters. They were happy, then next thing we know, they had a kid and hated each other. There was no timeline as to why they grew apart. I was about at the 1:10/1:15 mark and it took a very dramatic turn into the serious with the ski lodge conversation. You're right, that relationship is just a bit superfluous and kind of thrown in there to add layering, but there wasn't enough time to show the nuances and changes in their relationship. They go from the hottest couple of the 3 to hating each other and the only thing we're left to put the pieces together with is the fact that having kids is difficult/trying on a marriage. Or that drinking a lot can cause marital problems and numerous tense moments? At least with the other main relationship in the movie, you see more of the ups and downs, highs and lows. I having a feeling what direction this one is heading in...hope I'm wrong.

Forgot how hot Megan Fox was until I started watching FRIENDS WITH KIDS. Very entertaining, if a bit "talky" movie. Interesting premise, two best friends decide to have a kid but not do it the traditional way, sharing custody. Great cast, Jennifer Westfeldt (Kissing Jessica Stein), her real-life husband Jon Hamm, Maya Rudolph, Kristen Wiig and her b/f from Bridesmaids (the Irish dude), Edward Burns, Adam Scott (no, not the golfer, the actor). Really like this one, not quite sure how to describe it...it's a romantic comedy, but it tends to be a bit more serious and deep than most of those.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 03:10 AM) Emma Stone always looks really good. Cute, maybe. Really good? Hmmm...although I have to say after watching Easy A, I could never pick that Victoria's Secret model who was in Transformers 3 over her.

Ha ha, maybe you're right Quinarvy. And possibly we think it's our job as teachers to assume everything has a deeper meaning or connection, because if there's not one, why do they need our interpretations? Couldn't they just hire robots as teachers instead, if anything has a literal meaning and nothing is deeper or metaphorical?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) He was in that trade for Bailey earlier this year. Is he actually struggling to make the team? The BoSox seemed like they definitely could use him at least as a backup OF unless they signed someone else. He theoretically should be the LH share of a platoon in RF, unless one of them gets super-hot. Cody Ross will also get AB's, and then Ryan Kalish or Darnell McDonald will also have to play while Crawford's recovering.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 12:51 AM) I love you, Caulfield, but you are the king of tangents. Why does everyone think the 3 most popular movie/book franchises in modern history (Harry Potter, Twilight and now Hunger Games) all were written by women? Coincidence? Or the fact that there was a dearth of writing out there that were targeted specifically to appeal to young women, and each of these series has a girl/woman in a leading role, like Bella, like Katniss, like Hermione Granger (granted, Harry Potter is the real star of that series, along with Voldemort). Sex in the City would be another example, The Devil Wears Prada, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Eat Pray Love, and Bridesmaids being a more recent one. Twilight skewed 80% female, Hunger Games is sitting at 60% (because of the violence/killing aspect probably), which bodes well for it overtaking Twilight. Other than Nicholas Sparks movies, is it possible for a male to write a story that appeals equally to women? Is this just a matter of a female taking off with something that's already been done in a slightly different way, a bit of a combination of Orwell's 1984, The Lottery, The Handmaid's Tale and "Most Dangerous Game" and making it her own?

Maybe it's better to read the book afterwards. Everything in the movie seems a bit stale and repetitive if you've already read the books. It's always better to use your own imagination when reading the book...if you see the movie, it's hard not to imagine Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and Lenny Kravitz in those roles. I know that kind of goes against the idea of reading the book 2nd, but it would definitely have made the movie a lot more interesting if I didn't know exactly what was going to happen in advance, particularly the ending (and I suppose that's true for any book adapted into a movie). For example, the girl from District 11 is played by a young African-American girl. Even if it's subtle, it changes the perceptions based on the choice of actors for certain parts. Once again, there's this "Magic Negro" element, where the black person brings companionship and insight and perhaps makes the hero look better in the process. Maybe everything is too politicized these days, and politically correct. Or maybe it's because having Zoe Saldana in the co-hero role in Avatar was refreshing, but again, the Na'vi people were essentially saved in the end by the white guy. Earlier in the movie, there's a "news highlight/footage" reel and one of the most brutal killers, I think the one who used a brick as his weapon, is African-American, too. Maybe it's because of this whole Treyvon Martin thing that's causing me to look harder for something that's not there, at least not intentionally.

Opening Day March 24, 2012 07:57 AM by Phil Contrino Forget Twilight. The Hunger Games is shaping up to be the next Harry Potter. With $68.25 million in the bank on Friday, The Hunger Games should end up with a debut haul that exceeds $140 million. That will easily be the best March opening of all time—Alice in Wonderland holds the record for now with $116 million. A $142 million debut would also rank The Hunger Games in fifth place on the all-time openings list, and it would mark the best non-sequel opening of all time. The sci-fi flick already holds the best non-sequel opening day of all time. Word-of-mouth is very promising thanks to a 95% approval rating from more than 35,000 Flixster users. Expect strong holds—at least by blockbuster standards—in the weeks to come. John Young, ew.com When Katniss woke up, the other side of the bed was cold covered with money. The dystopian action film The Hunger Games posted the fifth-best opening day ever with a staggering $68.3 million (including $19.7 million from midnight showings). That’s by far the best opening day ever for a non-sequel. In fact, the next non-sequel in the opening-day record book sits all the way down in 18th place — 2010′s Alice in Wonderland with $40.8 million. The Hunger Games has started off stronger than such blockbusters as The Dark Knight, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1. However, the four films it fell short of are Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 ($91.1 million) and the three Twilight sequels. The PG-13 film, starring Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone) and directed by Gary Ross (Pleasantville), scored a solid “A” rating from CinemaScore audiences. The movie was evenly split between those under age 25 (who gave the film an “A+” grade) and those 25 years old and up (who were slightly less enthusiastic with an “A-” grade). Women made up 61 percent of the audience. By comparison, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn — Part 1 drew a crowd that was 80 percent female, so it’s clear that the more action-heavy The Hunger Games is doing a better job at attracting men. Where does The Hunger Games go from here? I initially predicted a weekend tally of $130 million, but the movie now seems headed for at least $140 million. It will easily top Alice in Wonderland‘s $116.1 million weekend to land the biggest opening ever for a non-sequel. But the real target is The Twilight Saga: New Moon, which represents the vampire series’ best debut so far with $142.8 million. In just one day, The Hunger Games has already nearly equaled what the first Twilight movie earned in an entire weekend ($69.6 million). However, if Katniss can muster a more impressive opening weekend than all of the Twilight entries – well, that’d make for one stunning entrance.

I get the fact that Crain's currently injured and Thornton's probably on the way out via trade sometime this season, but still not sure where they're ultimately going with this line of thinking. Would rather sacrifice the Ohman/Bruney/Stults journeyman types than stinting the growth of any of our legitimate prospects. You have a lefty with Santiago's arsenal, you definitely don't make him a closer when he's worth 10X as starter. What was the point of the Molina/Santos trade if not showing that a lot of major league teams are prioritizing young starting pitching as the most treasured asset in the game? I would personally rather have Nathan Jones in that position than Santiago. At least he has experience in this position...not sure why they want to mess with Santiago's head, when everything's been going so well the last year for him as a starter.

Moisturizing? Using the hand sanitizer liberally? Manicures?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,5402284.story Why would we take a LH pitcher who's legitimately throwing 92-95 MPH and has 3-4 above average pitches and make him into the closer? I could understand with Zach Stewart, he's shown limited ability to expand his repertoire beyond 2 pitches. Is KW blowing smoke again to inflate Santiago's trade value? I get the Molina/Santos trade, if they're right on Molina. But making Santiago a closer makes about zero sense. Having watched them move Beckham and Viciedo around...then Sale, it's a bit perplexing, to say the least. On one hand, Hector wasn't on a single "prospect" list at all coming into last year, and you like to reward the Sergio Santoses and Hector Santiagos of the world with a promotion to the big leagues...but at least do it with someone who has experience in that role, like Zach Stewart, if you're going to throw the towel in on him as a starter.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 07:31 PM) My question was, why move Viciedo away from RF when he is going to end up there in a couple years when Rios leaves anyway? Let the kid learn a position. DJ's answer was that Rios has more trade value in RF than in LF. lol. Like that matters at all at this point. Then he also said it's better if Viciedo is more versatile and can learn as many positions as he can, rather than just stay in one spot. Dumb, dumb answers. What's more idiotic is playing DeAza in CF then. Rios somehow has a lot of value in RF but he wouldn't in LF? It doesn't really matter which corner OF spot he plays. C'mon, if you're going to put up an OPS in the 650-700 range, it better be in CF, playing "plus" defense. Basically they're acknowleding that Rios was crap last year in CF and they don't trust him to play that position, but it's not like anyone is beating down our doors to acquire DeAza, and he's super cheap. Granted, there would be more takers for Alejandro due to his contract, but that's a pretty weak argument. Wasn't the whole point of acquiring Rios to fix the gaping hole in CF present since 2006? It wasn't to replace Carlos Quentin in RF with Alex Rios, that's for sure.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) Good job by Bruney and Ohman. Sox win. Now 9-12. Plane to Houston in 9 days. I thought we were playing in Arlington. Do we have an exhibition game against the Astros before that, haven't looked at the schedule?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) Not once while I was reading the book last year did I think "You know, this book is full of political allegory!" The writer, as the article has been mentioned, has been very outspoken about environmental issues, which is automatically a "green/liberal" shading to people who want to see it that way. I just showed my 7th graders THE LORAX the other day. Movies like that, or THE IRON GIANT (anti-militarism/pro-peace or the local versus Federal approach to a problem), can just as easily be interpreted as political or politicized. Of course here in China, the environment isn't a left-right political issue. There was a a proposal to have a lottery to raise money for protecting the environment, and it was quickly rejected on the grounds that it's the responsibility of the government, sitting on $3+ trillion in reserves, to address this problem directly.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) How is Hunger Games the same as a documentary on the Bush administration? Actually, don't answer that. Don't need to go further with this. Actually, I would argue nakedly pandering to your base, whether it's Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh/Fox or Santorum ads morphing Iran's leader into Obama and back and forth alienate and energize more of their opponents than energizing people on your "own side" to vote. But, as someone mentioned, everything can be politicized these days. If more white people start wearing hoodies to prove they won't be attacked for impersonating "gangstas," that will be politicized, too. Everything now is about sound bites and very little about substance. Gingrich is upset because Obama's trying to score points over Martin because of race...when isn't the whole point of the attack about race and racial profiling? Of course, the Republican idea is that it wouldn't be a tragedy on a national scale had a it been a white, Hispanic or Asian person that was killed, but I'm not sure I agree with that. Then the whole Etch a Sketch thing. Ron Paul has ads criticizing Santorum and Gingrich for trying to score political points on a "gaffe" whereas everyone outside the Beltway understands what the advisor was trying to say.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Stupid. Why do some people have to look too far into some things? Because it's an election year. Same reason so much was made of Fahrenheit 9/11, although that obviously had little impact on the presidential election in the end. It will be interesting to see what impact the Katherine Bigelow (Hurt Locker) movie about the hunt for bid Laden has in turning the election back towards a focus away from the economy and to foreign affairs, where Obama has been arguably more successful or at least popular in his decision-making process.

With the constant allusions to the decadence of the Capitol, it's hard not to see them as rich Republicans, lol. On the other hand, Katniss' personal design crew are very artistic/avant garde/Hollywood-influenced, so the Santorum folks would argue they represent the decaying moral/cultural values of Washington and the popular culture at-large.

Drew Garcia single, Tyler Saladino triple and Gallagher sac fly keys the comeback. Not sure if they'll go with Nathan Jones with his lack of experience, maybe?

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/h...-223719796.html

Flowers with his 3rd homer, hitting .300 now. Sox down 4-3 in the bottom of the 5th. Sale has gotten roughed up, but the defense hasn't helped him much. 4 2/3 IP, 3 ER, left a runner at 2B with a reliever just now coming in... Viciedo 0 for 2, now 4/35. Almost all of the minor leaguers have replaced the starters, so probably not the greatest odds of winning this game. Mitchell with another hit, .333 on the spring. Bruney in for Sale.

Of course, they've said the same thing about Calipari teams (like the one led by Wall) and his Memphis team in the past. Or the UNLV team that lost to Duke, etc. One of those teams is going to have to get super super hot from the outside, and you can't believe they'll not put one of their long, athletic defensive stoppers on Heslip. Perry Jones III has completely disappeared in this tournament. Of course, he'll be a lottery pick in the draft and Acy will go in the mid to late 2nd round.

Didn't even realize Ryan Sweeney was now trying to make the Red Sox until I tuned into the game radio broadcast today.

Jonah Hill > Seth Rogen Saturday Morning Update: Lionsgate reports that The Hunger Games made $68.25 million on Friday. That's the highest non-sequel Friday gross and the 5th highest Friday gross in history. Assuming around $40 million Saturday and $30 million Sunday, it's looking at a $135-140 million landing, higher than even most elevated expectations and hype. Another way to put it in perspective is that more than 3000 shows around the US are already pre sold out. A hot topic at ew.com, is Jennifer Lawrence "too sexy" for Kitness and not young and emaciated enough? Was she forecast in that role largely on a similar turn in Winter's Bone and less on the work she's done such as X-Men since? Finally, 21 Jump Street was very good, it's one of those movies like the police satire with Ferrell and Wahlberg that you expect to be at best so-so and are pleasantly surprised. Casting Channing Tatum against type was pretty brilliant.

Never thought I'd see that, an AJ Pierzynski inside-the-park home run. Hit off the top of the CF fence and somehow ricocheted about 30 yards off to the right of Chris Young. Wasn't really all that close at home plate.