http://superbowlads.fanhouse.com/2010/godaddycom-danica-patrick/
The Go Daddy.com commercial left me confused to say the least. What does this website do? Why would you go there? Sure, it mentions something about websites, etc. right before the girl rips off her shirt, but there's no real point to it. The only reason people would go to that website is because they remember an almost naked girl in the commercial, nothing else. At the end of the ad, it even states, "Web content unrated." So, the only draw to the website is for guys to go and hope to see more of the girl ripping off her shirt, or more accurately, hoping to see her in less. Basically this commercial is telling me they promote internet porn, right?
Also, this commercial really made me think less of Danica Patrick too. Why would she want her name linked to this? How could someone pitch her this comemrcial and she could think, "Yeah. This is a really good idea." Instead of thinking of Danica Patrick as a race car driver (which she was never really that good in the first place) they're gonna think Danica Patrick, internet porn. Yeah, a really good idea.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Movie Review for " The Lovely Bones"
So, Professor Larabee never gave us any specific instructions on which movie to write about, so I chose to write a movie review on the latest movie I saw in theaters, "The Lovely Bones." After reading Professor Larabee's suggested example of a, "delightful movie reviewer," I'm not making any promises on matching his wit or hilarity. I'm not going to lie to myself, even I don't think I'm that funny, so it'd come off as fake to even try. Even though, here's my review of the movie:
P.S. If you don't feel like reading my whole, drawn out opinion, skip to the one sentence, what-you-really-need-to-know-info at the bottom of the page
"The Lovely Bones" is a movie remake of a book by Alice Sebold (which to my delight my roommate who saw the movie with me quoted the book was written by Stephen King, not thinking the plot line was up to his regular standards) which seems to be the popular trend lately. Even though I'm tentative of seeing movies made after books (we all know we're gonna just be disappointed because the book is always better) I remembered loving the book when I read it when I was about 14 years old, and decided to give it a shot. The movie follows the story of a young girl who is loved by her family, active in her school, and falling in love with the exotic British kid at school. Then, she falls into the trap of the local, but unknown psycopathic, pedophile serial killer. He kills her in a crafty underground chamber he made in a corn field. The movie follows her activities prancing around the in between spot of heaven and earth. Her story, its aftermath, and how it affects her family continues to be told by her even though she is dead. The killer (who I know is not Martin Mull, but looks so much like him I found myself creeped out when watching "Roseanne" re-reuns) is eventually found out, escapes, only to be fed his own mouthful of karma in the end.
Overall, surprise, surprise, I liked the book better than the movie. I have not read the book in years, but I do not remember her sister having such a huge role (her sister is the one who supplies Martin Mull doppleganger's damning evidence to the police), and it focused more on her in the in between place (it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to call it purgatory because I don't really think that's what it was trying to portray) rather than her family. Also, in the movie, the mother leaves the family for her own sellfish reasons after Susie's death, not able to care anymore. At the end of the movie, the father, (played by Mark Wahlberg, which was a big upgrade from my 14-year old imagination) along with the rest of the family, takes the sellfish, cowardly mother back when she turns up on the doorstep, no questions asked. It didn't sit well with me that a family could just take back such a sellfish whore who left her family because she could think of no one else's pain but her own. And I'm sorry, but if I was married to Mark Wahlberg, you couldn't pay me to leave. Also, there's a really creepy scene where the exotic, British 14 year old boy hallucinates or actually sees the image or ghost of Susie and makes out with her..and then she could go to heaven...because that was her unfinished business...riiiight. Either way, making out with dead people weirds me out.
A father's love and devotion to his daughter was touching...but I could have been having an emotional night?
Overall, the book was better than the movie. I'm glad I saw it once, but won't spend the money to see it again.
P.S. If you don't feel like reading my whole, drawn out opinion, skip to the one sentence, what-you-really-need-to-know-info at the bottom of the page
"The Lovely Bones" is a movie remake of a book by Alice Sebold (which to my delight my roommate who saw the movie with me quoted the book was written by Stephen King, not thinking the plot line was up to his regular standards) which seems to be the popular trend lately. Even though I'm tentative of seeing movies made after books (we all know we're gonna just be disappointed because the book is always better) I remembered loving the book when I read it when I was about 14 years old, and decided to give it a shot. The movie follows the story of a young girl who is loved by her family, active in her school, and falling in love with the exotic British kid at school. Then, she falls into the trap of the local, but unknown psycopathic, pedophile serial killer. He kills her in a crafty underground chamber he made in a corn field. The movie follows her activities prancing around the in between spot of heaven and earth. Her story, its aftermath, and how it affects her family continues to be told by her even though she is dead. The killer (who I know is not Martin Mull, but looks so much like him I found myself creeped out when watching "Roseanne" re-reuns) is eventually found out, escapes, only to be fed his own mouthful of karma in the end.
Overall, surprise, surprise, I liked the book better than the movie. I have not read the book in years, but I do not remember her sister having such a huge role (her sister is the one who supplies Martin Mull doppleganger's damning evidence to the police), and it focused more on her in the in between place (it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to call it purgatory because I don't really think that's what it was trying to portray) rather than her family. Also, in the movie, the mother leaves the family for her own sellfish reasons after Susie's death, not able to care anymore. At the end of the movie, the father, (played by Mark Wahlberg, which was a big upgrade from my 14-year old imagination) along with the rest of the family, takes the sellfish, cowardly mother back when she turns up on the doorstep, no questions asked. It didn't sit well with me that a family could just take back such a sellfish whore who left her family because she could think of no one else's pain but her own. And I'm sorry, but if I was married to Mark Wahlberg, you couldn't pay me to leave. Also, there's a really creepy scene where the exotic, British 14 year old boy hallucinates or actually sees the image or ghost of Susie and makes out with her..and then she could go to heaven...because that was her unfinished business...riiiight. Either way, making out with dead people weirds me out.
A father's love and devotion to his daughter was touching...but I could have been having an emotional night?
Overall, the book was better than the movie. I'm glad I saw it once, but won't spend the money to see it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)