Guys, it’s just so sad. I had to share:
There we were, me, Adam, in the car with the progeny in the backseat on our way to run an errand. I saw something spectacular, incredible, fan-effing-tastic!
“I have to have a Burger King kid’s meal!”
“Right now? Or on the way home?” Adam replied.
“On the way home…they have Twilight toys!”
That’s when Adam gave me a look of disgust and hit me repeatedly saying “dirty, dirty, dirty!”
“No! It’s awesome! That’s a blog post right there!” I was practically gleeful. “Maybe I’ll get a shirtless Jacob figure!” I snickered.
Cut to later when we’re in the drive-thru. The sign on the menu said the toy was a holographic ring. Excellent! I could totally take sexy-face pictures of me wearing it. Adam just wondered if they could make holograms sparkle. The air was thick with anticipation as I dug into my greasy bag and excitedly pulled out…
…a Marmaduke toy.
A MARMADUKE TOY?
Booooooo! Where was my toy for desperate Twihards?
I then sent my very-good-sport of a husband inside to make an inquiry about the toys. They were out of Eclipse toys.
They were out.
I’ve concluded that either Twilight has suddenly become very popular with the under-12 set or a lot of lonely, grown women have been ordering kid’s meals at Burger King. Then again, maybe there’s just been a rush of bloggers like me ordering them for the purpose of satire and merciless mockery. ;)

PS: I love to make fun of Twilight for many reasons {not the least of which being that it’s just so easy}.  And I do stand by my belief that they send a terrible message to girls about relationships. That said, I do have my own similarly pathetic movies and books to which I will admit a fond attachment. But I’m still going to poke fun at Twilight and the obsessive fandom. So spare me any outrage in the comments, please.

Did you know I’m an actress? Well, I am. I started doing musical theatre when I was just a little kid. I love being on the stage. But I also love being in front of the camera. Maybe you’ve seen some of my work?


The Whedon shows were probably my favorite ones to be a part of. But getting to sing and dance on Glee has been fantastic so far. I’ve met so many wonderful people through my acting career. It’s been fantastic. There’s a biographic movie in the works. They wanted to get Angelina Jolie to play the role of me, but I said “She’s a hack. I’ll play myself thankyouverymuch.”
There you have it, the highlights of my life as a thespian. It’s not the only career I’ve dabbled in. I’ll have to write posts about the others. Remind me to tell you about the time I designed the Large Hadron Collider.

Adam gets to see a lot of movies for work. He works with disabled individuals and they do all sorts of things; grocery shopping, job hunting, bowling, and, yes, movies.

So he sees a lot of things before I do. It works out quite well. I don’t have to see movies I’m not interested in but that he wants to see. And when I do go to the theatre he can take baby-duty {i.e. diaper changes and soothing fusses} and he isn’t missing anything he’s not already seen.

Now, we’re Star Trek fans. We don’t own our own Federation Uniforms, or Tribbles, or anything {yet}. But we do love it. We were pretty stoked for the new movie. Not surprisingly, Adam saw it first. It took a while before I was ready to try venturing to the theatre with Lucy to see it. But finally the time came that I was ready to give it a go. We made plans to see it the very next day.

And then the movie theatre switched out the shows and it was no longer playing.

We were both very, very bummed. It was going to be my first time seeing a movie since Lucy had been born. And Adam had been dying for me to see it so he could actually talk about it with me without giving anything away.

Then we had to head to a different city for immigration stuff. And that city happened to have a dollar theatre,* a dollar theatre still playing Star Trek. So we made plans to see it while we were there.

And then the movie theatre switched out the shows and it was no longer playing.

Then, on our flight to Toronto, they had the little TV things built into the seats that had TV shows and movies. One of the movies? Yup, you guessed it. Star Trek. So we did our best to watch it while keeping Lucy happy.

And then the screen froze in the middle of the movie.

We did manage to finally see it in a dollar theatre in Ohio. Lucy even slept or cuddled quietly the whole time!

So, what did I think?

TOTALLY WORTH THE WAIT.

Also?

The new Kirk is totally hot a very good casting choice.

*Why, why, why don’t we have a dollar theatre in this town?

There are some truly awful movies out there. Eragon comes to mind, as does Poseidon (the 2006* remake of the not nearly as horrible Poseidon Adventure). The Star Wars Holiday Special was a portent of future disappointments.** And let's not forget Jaws 3 and 4***, Jurassic Park 2 and 3, and Tremors 2 and 3****. But recently I saw the ultimate bad movie, the king of horrible cinema, the "make it stop! make it stop!" movie that makes you want to go back to school, study physics, build a time machine, go back in time, and destroy the human race in it's infancy to prevent the cinematic atrocity from ever being conceived. Ladies and gentlemen, I am talking about:

Batman & Robin

Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have all that respectable of an acting career to begin with, neither does Alicia Silverstone. But George Clooney? I'm embarrassed for him. Truly, I am. Actually...I'm embarrassed for anyone even slightly responsible for the horror that is Batman & Robin. If I had worked on that film I think I would leave it off my resume and hope the world forgets that I had anything to do with it.

The acting was horrible!

The costumes were ridiculous (rubber nipples?)!

The sets were like something from a nightmare the lovechild of Dali and Rodin might have.

The script seemed to be written by 12 year old boys. Not many people like puns to begin with. I do. And I couldn't stomach a single one.

The plot was so impossible that science teachers the world over probably had heart attacks watching it.

The characters were so flat they could make paper feel self conscious about it's weight.

And I'm sorry guys...but there is NO EXCUSE for the opening butt shots!

I'm not the only person who thinks this movie, well, sucks. It was nomiated for a total of 11 Razzies and won 1. How it failed to win more I will never understand. It merits a shameful 12% on Rotten Tomatoes. This movie is just bad, really, really, really bad. It killed the entire Batman series and they (Hollywood) had to start over (and thank goodness they did)! I about died when, while watching it, I suddenly realized millions of dollars (125 million) were spent to make it. I can think of at least 125 million better ways to spend 125 million dollars (some examples: getting root canals, tickets to the Creationism Museum, Backstreet Boys albums, or getting a tattoo of Hitler on my face).

The only thing that made watching the movie tolerable?

RiffTrax

And knowing it would eventually end.

So there you have it. My feelings about Batman & Robin. Or, to put it another way:

Holy $#*!, Batman!

What movie tops your Worst Ever list?

*2006 really wasn't a good year for Hollywood: Eragon, Poseidon, Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest, The Illusionist, Superman Returns...However 2006 also gave us one of my favorites, V for Vendetta, so all is forgiven.

**Though...Episodes I, II, and III were not totally without merit. But don't tell my husband I said that.

***Why Michael Caine, why?!

****Projectile farts? Really?

It's time for another movie rant. First, let me make it perfectly clear that I really like the movie Hairspray. I like the story, the music, the dancing, and the characters, as one dimensional as they may be (and hey, it's a musical...they're supposed to be one dimensional). None of those things are a problem.

"Then what's the big deal," you ask?

John Travolta.

Well, not so much John Travolta as the fact that they cast him as Edna (the lead's mother).


See, here's my beef. One of the main messages of the movie is loving yourself the way you are, and that big is beautiful. Yet the casting director saw fit to cast a man wearing a fat suit rather than an actual fat woman in what is a pretty big role (no pun intended). Would it have killed Hollywood to give the role of the large mama to an actual large mama?

I have some experience with the process of casting (albeit in local theater rather than big budget movies). And I'm here to tell you that it can be incredibly frustrating to be rejected for a role simply because one doesn't look right for the part. Now, considering the shortage of roles available for larger women in the first place I can't help but imagine how I'd feel if I was a plus sized actress learning about Mr. Travolta getting such a prime part. I'd be "cussing angry." Isn't it enough that larger women have to watch hundreds of parts go to the eating-disorder elite of Hollywood without watching the role practically made for them go not only to a man, but to a thin man?

I think that sucks.

What do you think?

Lucy has been testing the limits of my sanity this week. Suddenly stopped sleeping the usual amount. Prefers crying about being hungry to actually eating. Fusses and whines a lot, even in her sleep (which, truth be told is heart-breakingly adorable).

In other news: Kung Fu Panda is a really, really cute movie (I heart Jack Black). Bear is doing well in school. One of my sisters-in-law is pregnant with a little girl and her due date is today (fingers crossed)! Winter needs to GO AWAY (I'm trying to exercise, really I am...but running on ice = disaster waiting to happen). Oh, and having a bucket seat for Lucy is everything I dreamed it would be.

Recently Adam and I watched Hook (which I happen to think is quite fun). Adam had never seen Disney's Peter Pan, and I could only remember seeing it once a long time ago. So last night we watched it.

Can I just say that both Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are HUGE jerks?

Peter Pan is self-obsessed and seems to either be completely oblivious to others' feelings or does not care about said feelings.

And Tinkerbell tries to get Wendy killed, and when that fails, Shanghaied.

It just further makes me question people's love affair with Tinkerbell.

Adam's thoughts on the movie were something along the lines of "Well, that just encourages girls to seek out abusive relationships doesn't it?"

He's got a point:

• Tinkerbell almost gets herself killed trying to rescue her precious Peter Pan despite the fact that he seemed to ignore her very existence the moment he met Wendy (not that that excuses Tinkerbell trying to off the poor girl).
• Peter then ignores Wendy on multiple occasions as well. Heck, when the mermaids (who also seem to have a fan-worship love affair thing for Pan) completely soak Wendy in jealousy Pan just laughs and acts like it's no big deal. He is either stupid enough to believe them when they claim they were "just having fun" or doesn't really care that Wendy is being bullied. And after rescuing Tiger Lily Wendy gets completely ignored by Peter yet again. The only person who pays her any mind at the Indian camp is an old woman who sends her to fetch firewood. Yet, after returning home and telling her mother about the adventure Wendy gushes about how wonderful Peter Pan is.
  
• Mr. Darling clearly has some anger management problems. (When I pointed out to Adam that he apologized and such after calming down Adam made the point that anyone can be loving and apologetic when they're calm...what matters is how people act when they're angry. He's totally right. Even the most abusive boyfriends/spouses/fathers/etc. act sorry once they're calmed down/sobered up/etc.)
  
• Then, looking at things from a different perspective, Tinkerbell is kind of abusive/manipulative of Peter. She gets so insanely jealous of him spending time with Wendy that she pouts and, like I mentioned, tries to get her killed. Yet later in the movie Peter insists that Tink is the most important thing in the whole world to him. So even though Tink would have his friends killed and even though Peter seems totally content to ignore Tinkerbell she's "the most important thing in the whole world to him?"
  

As I thought more and more about it all I started to think "OK. Everybody is going to think you're taking this way too seriously." Yeah. I am, kind of. I mostly point all this out because it's just so silly/ridiculous. But the more you look into it the more wacko the movie becomes. Here are some aspects of abuse (as well as here and here). The following are all applicable to behavior demonstrated (to some extent) by one of more characters in Peter Pan.

• Rejecting - refusing to acknowledge a person's presence, value or worth.
• Dominance — Abusive individuals need to feel in charge of the relationship. They will make decisions for you and the family, tell you what to do, and expect you to obey without question. Your abuser may treat you like a servant, child, or even as his possession.
• Intimidation — Your abuser may use a variety of intimation tactics designed to scare you into submission. Such tactics include making threatening looks or gestures, smashing things in front of you, destroying property, hurting your pets, or putting weapons on display. The clear message is that if you don't obey, there will be violent consequences.
• Denial and blame — Abusers are very good at making excuses for the inexcusable. They will blame their abusive and violent behavior on a bad childhood, a bad day, and even on the victims of their abuse. Your abuser may minimize the abuse or deny that it occurred. He will commonly shift the responsibility onto you: Somehow, his violence and abuse is your fault.

And some questions that if answered yes indicate an abusive relationship (as seen in Peter Pan):

Does the individual...

• ignore your feelings?
• ridicule or insult you then tell you its a joke, or that you have no sense of humor? (And I would add, "or let others insult you then tell you its a joke)
• present a wonderful face to the world and is well liked by outsiders?
• threaten to leave, or threaten to throw you out?
• harass you about imagined affairs?
• interrupt you; hear but not really listen?
• give you the silent treatment?
• treat you like [an]...object?

Wow. That's a whole lot of messed up for a movie that's for kids and about kids. You know there is a problem with your story's protagonists when the antagonist (Hook) inspires more sympathy.

Actually, the character who inspires the most sympathy is Nana, the poor dog. All her efforts to tidy the Darling nursery are promptly destroyed by the human members of the family and then she gets punished for no reason other than Mr. Darling's anger management issues. And she gets left behind while the children fly off to Neverland, and man can she really pull off the "sad puppy dog eyes!"

I probably don't even need to mention how incredibly offensive the portrayal of Native Americans in Peter Pan is. Aside from the controversy over the word squaw* the movie just reeks of politically incorrectness. Now, don't get me wrong. I know political correctness can definitely go to far. But when one of your main characters gets to call all "Indjuns" unintelligent I think it's fair to say there's a bit of a problem.

All in all the movie is pretty messed up. People have been pointing out issues with various Disney movies for decades (I once had a classmate who wrote a research paper on how anti-feminist many Disney movies are). Sometimes concerns are pretty valid (yeah...maybe Disney needed to stop making quite so many movies in which the heroine accomplished nothing but falling in love and being rescued by the man). Sometimes concerns were just too silly (like the hubbub over the hyenas in Lion King being voiced by African Americans...um...so was Mufasa and he was definitely a good guy). But I think it's safe to say that when your movie is sufficiently messed up enough that the audience can't enjoy watching it (because they're so annoyed by the characters) that you might want to reevaluate things. I mean, at least with most of the movies people have complaints about the movie is still fun to watch. But, sorry, watching Tinkerbell pout for 77 minutes is just not fun.

So there's my two cents on an issue that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

*"the word has been used in a very racist and sexually abusive way, so it definitely has negative implications now. Like "nigger," the word "squaw" should be retired from public use. It is also not an Indian word and no Indians ever use it among themselves."

I don't watch scary movies. Mostly because I'm a big wuss. I don't understand the appeal of choosing to spend a couple of hours feeling absolutely tense and uncomfortable. About the scariest movie I can handle (on a good day) is Signs. Pathetic? Maybe.

But it gets more pathetic. Why? Pregnancy. Yes, those pesky hormones have caused my scary movie aversion to soar to levels well above the atmosphere.

A while back Adam and I picked up a copy of "The Spiderwick Chronicles" on DVD for 3 bucks. We had taken some nieces and nephews to see it earlier this year and both thought it was pretty good. If nothing else it was cute.

I have not been able to bring myself to watch it again.

We finally popped it in the other night and about 60 seconds in I flipped out and told Adam "I can't watch this!" That's right. I got too scared remembering the movie to even try watching it. I couldn't watch a children's movie, a movie rated PG ("for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements"), a movie my 4 year old* niece seemed to handle just fine (her only complaint was that it was too loud at times).

I once made fun of my dad for being scared of the flying monkeys (from "The Wizard of Oz") when he was a kid.

At least he was only frightened by kid's movies when he was a kid.

*I'm not actually positive she's 4 years old, but close enough.

What I'm Currently Reading (heaven forbid I keep to one book at a time):

Birth: The Surprising History Of How We Are Born by Tina Cassidy
So far I like it. It's fascinating! If more textbooks were written like this I think I might have actually enjoyed my classes more often.

Mothering The Mother: How a Doula Can Help You Have a Shorter, Easier, and Healthier Birth by Klaus, Kennell, and Klaus
I love the pictures that all seem to be from the 70's/80's/maybe early 90's...but hey, the content is interesting.

What I'm Looking Forward to Reading (as soon as I get my hands on copies):
(I know Loree (my doula) has at least one of my "need-to-reads" in her personal lending library. Hopefully she has the rest because the library does not have most of them.)

Birthing From Within: An Extra-Ordinary Guide to Childbirth Preparation by England and Horowitz

Ina May's Guide to Childbirth by Ina May Gaskin
Interesting tidbit: my doula actually trained at Ina May's center in Tennessee! ETA: Read and LOVE LOVE LOVE IT!

The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth by Goer and Wheeler

The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding: Seventh Revised Edition by La Leche League International I started reading this while I was still working at Good Earth in Provo (we cashiers were allowed to read when we weren't otherwise occupied). But then we moved so I didn't get to finish it. The cover features a really sweet picture of a nursing baby. One of my male co-workers asked what I was reading so I showed him the book. You could almost hear his embarrassment when he saw the cover. It was kind of funny but it was also sad. Why? This (and this) is why.

What I Have Already Read or Purchased and Partially Read (some books are more for reference rather than sitting down and plowing through)

The Baby Book: Everything You Need to Know About Your Baby from Birth to Age Two by Sears, Sears, Sears, and Sears
If I was filthy rich I'd buy a copy for every expectant mom.

The Breast Feeding Book: Everything You Need to Know About Nursing Your Child from Birth Through Weaning by Sears and Sears
Man! The things you learn in this book are amazing! You really gain an apprectiation for your body (I make milk, what's your superpower?)!

Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care by Jennifer Block
LOVED this book! Really, REALLY loved this book! It's definitely an eye-opener!

Johnson's Mother and Baby by Cooper, Moorhead, Holland, Godridge, and Griffey
Not bad, not bad at all. It's certainly better than a lot (I'm talking about YOU What to Expect When You're Expecting). And it has some really beautiful pictures of some really beautiful babies. But I'd recommend saving your cash and buying the Sear's Baby Book instead.

Speaking of books...I visited one of my favorite places last night: THE LIBRARY! You'd think a bibliophile like me would have checked out the library in town the second we arrived. But somehow I just hadn't gotten around to it. I must say I'm very pleased. And me saying I'm pleased says a lot considering the libraries I'm used to (nationally recognized libraries in Centerville, and the Provo Library and Harold B. Lee Library (HBLL) at BYU which is one of the best college libraries in the US). While the Medicine Hat library may not have the sheer size of the HBLL, the old beauty of the Provo library, nor the extensive movie collection of the Centerville libraries it definitely deserves a lot of love!

A library card runs you $5 a year. I'm not used to giving the library money for anything other than my late fees (which I accrue more often than I'd care to disclose and in amounts that probably function as a larger revenue source than taxes). But I can't complain. $5 is nothing considering the services provided (which I will discuss hereafter) and is still probably going to be less than my yearly late fees.

In addition to the normal library perks (such as a large collection of books which one may borrow) they have free children's programs (which isn't uncommon I suppose) including one for babies who are a mere 4 months old. They also have movies on Thursdays and Saturdays. Now...Provo had a movie night. Adam and I went once. We stayed for about 5-10 minutes. Why? Because I'd rather watch a movie on a tiny little screen in my own home than sit on uncomfortable metal chairs surrounded by kids whose parents don't even attempt to quiet them while straining to see the image projected on a wall in a room that is too brightly lit to be using a projector in the first place and with speakers that are mostly useless. Last night was one of the Medicine Hat Library's movie nights. We stayed for the whole movie. Why? Because they had an actual screen with actual movie theater seating. We will most certainly be going back (free date night!). The library also has workshops and reading programs and is a nice-looking place with really helpful staff. They also have a paperback exchange (bring in a paperback you don't want anymore and take one home to keep). So here's an A+ for the Medicine Hat Library. Oh, and this is the same place with the giant chess board. Still haven't managed to get pictures of the pieces though (they were putting them away for the night by the time we got there).

As for the movie we saw...no A+ there. We watched The Golden Compass. Now I had heard all kinds of things about this movie (anti-God, anti-religion, blah blah blah). But I'm a thinking adult and I'd rather decide these things for myself than have my opinion dictated to me by the hysterical masses (I tend to roll my eyes at any dire warnings received via e-mail forwards). Had it been rated R I certainly would have passed. But seeing as it was a children's movie I was willing to give it a shot (plus it just seemed interesting).

Now, I will say that after we got home I did a little digging. Turns out the books upon which the movie is based are quite anti-religious. The author happily admits his personal opinions on such things. But the movie was so convuluted that it's hard to say what, if any, theme it was trying to portray. Knowing the controversy over the film and being a more astute film watcher than most (my film major husband is training me well) even I had a hard time picking up on any sinister or even merely snarky jabs at religion. Maybe some things could be conveyed as somewhat anti-Catholic...but even that's a stretch.

When it comes right down to it my biggest complaint about the movie is that is simply wasn't very good. The visuals and design were great (loved the wardrobe and the architecture of the world in which the story takes place). But it was obvious that the makers of this movie had tried to cram far too much book into one movie. When adapting a book you either have to sacrifice enough material that the story won't confuse your audience (like dropping Peeves from the Harry Potter movies) or you have to be like Peter Jackson and make some seriously long films (Lord of the Rings). You can't simply try to include it all only to end up barely touching on story lines and barely introducing characters and then expect your audience to know what's going on and to care about the players. So I'm going to reccomend skipping this movie, but only because there are so many better movies to spend your time on.

Now, am I going to read the books? Probably not. I will admit that I'm curious to see just how strong the athiest overtones are, but not curious enough to bump the books to the top of my reading list (which includes far more than the birth and baby related books mentioned above). But who knows. Maybe some day my curiosity will get the better of me. Never say never, right?

I must say I find the tenants of athiesm hard to relate too. Agnosticism I totally get. But seeing as it's pretty impossible to "prove" the non-exsistence of God just as much as it is to prove the existence of God it would seem to me that athiesm requires just as much faith as any religion does. The main difference between the two being that one creates an awfully lonely universe. Of course, I will concede that my opinion is obviously tainted by the fact that as a Christian I most certainly do believe in God.

The other thing I find interesting is that someone would take the time to write an entire series of children's books "about killing God" that are meant to "undermine the basis of Christian belief" (author's words, not mine). For one thing I think young children aren't exactly the best audience for such an argument. One wonders if such themes wouldn't be totally lost on such readership. After all, as a child I totally missed the Christian allergory in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardobe by C.S. Lewis (and if you haven't yet read the Narnia series believe me, the Christian themes are hardly what you'd call subtle). Yet, I suppose, as Adam pointed out, that the aim may be to subconsciously preach your message to a young mind.

My other problem is this: it just seems rude. I mean, really, am I the only one who thinks it's awfully negative to set out to undermine some-one else's beliefs just because one doesn't hold the same beliefs? I don't believe in Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. but I sincerely appreciate just about every religion. You know why? Because I appreciate people who are spiritual, and earnestly trying to do good in the world (that doesn't mean I don't have a total and utter dislike for hypocrites who claim religiousity as the impetus for wrong-doing). My World Religions class was one of my absolute favorites. And I'm pretty much a "You're fine. I'm fine. Let's Hug" kind of person.

It's one thing to write books arguing FOR your views (a' la C.S. Lewis). It's an entirely different matter to write books meant to tear down that which so many people hold dear. It's not even that the author is painting the religious as mistaken, or foolish but that they (and religion itself/God) are painted as the evil villain. And when that's the tactic you resort to I have to wonder if you're either just very bitter about something or have an argument too weak to stand on its own.

And finally, some good news! We have a working phone! Yup, that's right, incoming calls and outgoing calls are now possible. However...we had to be assigned a new number to fix the problem. My Facebook friends can find that number here. It is actually a Calgary number. So apologize to anyone who doesn't have unlimited long distance. You're always welcome to drop me a line via e-mail or Facebook and request that I call you. And if you need to get in touch right away you can call and ask me to call right back.

So...I've been meaning to read the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer (a BYU alum). A friend finally loaned me her copies of the first three and I read them in less that 2 days. Adam is reading them too (working on the last one as I type). I expected to enjoy them. I have not been disappointed. I'm not sure how well they'll translate into movies (the first movie is due out in December). But I'm more interested in getting my hands on the next installment anyway. I won't go into details on the plot just in case I'm not the last person on earth to read them (besides Adam of course). And I can't say they've become my all time favorites...but they're still great fun. They're the kind of books I can see myself re-reading in the future. In fact I'd probably read them often enough that investing in my own collection would be a good plan. But there are some other books I need to get my hands on as well.

PS- I just checked out some promotional pictures for the new movie...can't say I'm pleased with the casting...at all. I'm worried the upcoming movie will be about as good as Eragon (in other words, terriblly, horribly awful). Really, truly, utterly unhappy with the casting decisions. Almost no one looks like I pictured them (maybe Bella...and maybe Jasper is ok, though not how I pictured him). Edward especially looks all wrong. So that's disappointing. But hey, at least if the movie turns out to be a big fiasco I can still enjoy the books.
Edit: I looked at some stills from the movie, much better than the promotional photos. Still...not quite what I pictured. But at least not dreadful. There may be hope for the movie after all...

Last Friday Adam and I saw The Dark Knight. Usually we wait until movies come to the dollar theater or DVD to see them...but there is no dollar theater in Medicine Hat and there was no way we were waiting to see Batman anyway! It was much darker than the first one, but also better! The Joker has to be the scariest/best/most disturbing/awesome villain I've ever seen in a movie. I definitely recommend it to anyone who is remotely interested in Batman. But I should also warn you that it is quite intense. It is PG-13 for a reason and I would insist you not take anyone younger than 13 to see it (too scary, too dark, almost too much for me). I'm keenly interested in what will happen in the next one and sorely disappointed that I have to wait quite a while to find out.