Tag Archives: vampires

Say it isn’t so

This is my final Twilight saga movie review.  No doubt my friend Tina is already poised to type the words “Barf.”

I wonder if she is feeling sentimental, too.

I saw Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 last night at a special early screening.  I was curious if director Bill Condon could pull together a fitting end to the series, since he  had already used in my estimation all the ‘good stuff’ from the final book in Part 1.

The audience at the early show was pumped, but there was none of the mania of years past.  I’d like to think we’ve all matured a little.

The film has, too.

The screenplay has a sense of humor.  It was funny…on purpose.  And at times also sweet and sad.

Part 2 also features vampire Bella.  For all the critics who have slammed her character for being weak and codependent, come see her being seriously bad-ass. To everyone.  All she needs is a bow-and-arrow and ‘luck forever in her favor.’

Most importantly, Part 2 is action-packed and full of surprises.  I haven’t made this much noise watching a movie in ages — the vampire battle is shocking and strewn with death.

Even if you’re not a big Twilight fan, I strongly recommend you come see how it all ends.

Epic?  Indeed.

Shiny things

It sparkles.  It’s sharp, so it could draw blood.  And it’s beautiful.

Is it…a vampire?

No.  (But it’s the right time of year to think so.)

Actually, this is an extreme closeup of one of several glass cacti created by artist Dale Chihuly.  They are part of his “Nature of Glass” exhibit on display through March 2012 at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix.

I love glass, and thanks to a happy Google accident, I am now aware of Dale’s work.  Also, Phoenix locals can take advantage of glass blowing classes that are offered throughout the year at the Botanical Garden.

But vampires?  No.  Fire makes it tricky.

[Still] more vampires

You write a blog long enough, you’re bound to start repeating yourself.

Or just realize your pleas are going unanswered.

Way back in August 2009 — when The Sticky Egg had just been hatched — I begged the writers of True Blood to give more screen time to the vamps in Season 2.

And after last night’s season premiere, I feel a repeat of that column — with the appropriate updates, of course — is in order:

Dear True Blood writers:

I started watching your show because of your clever ad campaign featuring vampires. They’re hot right now, as you are well aware. And Bill Compton? He’s really hot.

The first year of the series, you kept me and no doubt a lot of True Blood viewers very happy. It was all Sookie and Bill and the whole vamp storyline. Good times in Bon Temps.

Now, it’s season [four]. [Vampire Eric and Sookie seem poised to pounce upon each other.]  I never thought I’d meet a vampire on True Blood to rival my love for Bill, but there [Eric] is. I want more Eric…and more Bill to battle Eric for Sookie’s affections.

But what is this? Some weirdo [woman bringing birds back to life] in the woods?  In my house, we call this storyline the elongated commercial break before the real players — the vamps — come back on-screen.

The show’s called True Blood.  Show us more of it.

Yep.  Still works.  ‘Cause it’s still true.

Sinister strings

Vampires.  Werewolves.  Zombies.  They are all over television and film these days.

(Hey, I’m not complaining.)

But have you encountered…The Violin Monster????

I have.  He was playing in the subway yesterday afternoon.

Now, it’s not that unusual to see musicians playing for change on the train platform.  But a guy wearing a monster mask playing the violin?

It caught my eye.

He is a smart Violin Monster, too.  Next to his open violin case — where the money was piling up — he had a sign advertising his website, ViolinMonster.com. It’s a fun read.  The writing is straightforward and hilarious in spots.  I recommend it.

And if you’re headed to New York City this spring, I hope you get to see the Violin Monster.

Heck, he might have his own reality show by then!

Bad blood

Is it just me, or are the women of “True Blood” getting a bit…well… annoying?

I would put them on the following scale:

  • only slighting annoying — new vampire Jessica
  • annoying — the always crying Sookie
  • very annoying — Queen Sophie
  • shoot-her-with-a-gun annoying — Bill’s maker Lorena and Tara (it’s a tie)

Right now, it’s hard to like any of them.  All they do is cry and whine and then cry some more.  Then they get kidnapped or attacked and start crying again.  At least Sookie can read minds and do that flashy light thing with her hands, but then she sees Bill…and starts crying.

I suppose it’s the writers’ fault.  But maybe it’s hard to concentrate when all your male stars are so gosh darn good looking.

I have a scale for them as well:

  • cute like a puppy dog — Hoyt and Terry
  • good-looking guy next door — Sam
  • ripped, dumb guy next door — Jason
  • the hot one with the beard — Alcide
  • the hottest (until Eric) — Bill
  • the hottest thing in Bon Temps — Eric

I should probably add a category for “ugly mean guys,” since they’ve added a few this year to punch up the storyline.  I appreciate that, even though they’re not that fun to look at.

(That vampire Franklin who grabbed Tara?  Ug-ly.  But she annoys me, so I was kinda hoping he’d kill her. It could still happen.  Crossed fingers.)

So, to the writers of “True Blood” — if you’re planning to keep all these women around — or any characters for that matter — give them something interesting to do.

Crying bloody tears only works so many times.

It’s all in the…

I have decided to subscribe to Details.

First, they print the controversial cover story featuring RPatz surrounded by naked models and discussing his allergy to female anatomy.

Intriguing.

Now, they have multiple covers featuring the men of True Blood — in various states of undress themselves — to promote the serie’s third season which begins June 13 on HBO.

Clearly, this magazine knows what I like.

Vampires?  No.  Really, really good-looking men.  And beautiful photography of those same  men.

(The articles don’t suck either.)

I’m sorry; I don’t mean to sound shallow (which I am).  I’m just glad that certain magazines realize that women — and some men —  like to look at men, too.  Goodness knows that magazines have provided lovely images of women for years.

So, thank you, Details, for treating the men of “True Blood” like equals.

Of course, if I were ever lucky enough to meet them, I would be most interested in their personalities.

Hee.

I object

Why do I have to be wrong for you to be right?

I’ll tell you why.  At our core, we are all judgers.  That’s judgers, judgers, judgers.

From the first moment we see someone — whether in person, in a photo, or in a Youtube video — we dissect their looks, voice, dress and actions, and in a matter of seconds, decide whether they are worthy of our time.

It’s a wonder we have any friends at all.

Now, obviously, there are some people who pass our test. The men featured in the 2009 Sexiest Man Alive issue of People magazine were judged exceptionally attractive by a national panel of editors.  There has also been an obsessive frenzy surrounding the stars of the “Twilight” movie franchise. Those actors have been judged worthy of their fans’ time, attention and somewhat scary mania.

But probably most fascinating to me is how quick people are to judge other people who like something that they don’t.

The “Twilight” movies are a great example. The fans of this franchise have been practically demonized by those who haven’t read the books or seen the movies.  The Comments page of this week’s New York magazine was brutal.  One reader said of the Twilight moms: “Their poor children, and their poor husbands! I wish they’d get some perspective and see how sad they really look.”

Wow.  There’s some judging going on there.

Why can’t people just be different?  Or think differently?  Or, god forbid, like different things?

Why do they have to be inherently wrong?

We say ‘live and let live,’ but as a society, we don’t practice what we preach.  What we really mean to say is,  ‘let me live the way I want, and you live my way, too…’cause if you live or think differently or enjoy different things, that’s wrong.’

Now, “Twilight” isn’t the most important issue in the world — believe me, I know.  But it’s also not the most deadly, god-awful, dangerous book ever written.  Teenage girls and their families are exposed to more controversial things on episodes of “Gossip Girl” — can you say three-way? — so I find it interesting that people are trash-talking a very old-fashioned romance with vampires.

If you don’t like the series, that’s fine.  That’s your choice. But other people liking it isn’t wrong…it’s simply their choice.

So, stop your judging.  That’s right.  I’m looking at you.  Judger.

That’s judger, judger, judger.

Box-ing office?

If you were on Twitter at all on Halloween, you may have noticed that one of the trending topics was #potterday.

It seems the fans of the Harry Potter books and films were chatting them up, and why not?  On a holiday where ghosts and goblins walk the earth, talk of wizards and death eaters seems apropos.

But when I read the potterday tweets — and added one of my own (heck, I like Harry as much as the next muggle) — I noticed a few felt it necessary to slam “Twilight” in the process:

“Who needs vampires?  We have magic.”

Why do you have to dislike “Twilight” to like Harry Potter?  Are the two mutually exclusive?  Why is life always a competition?

It reminds me a bit of my youth.  (Yes, I can remember back that far.)  When “Star Wars” came out, many “Star Trek” fans — and I am pointing the finger straight back at myself  — were insulted by the very presence of this new saga and boycotted it.  Years passed before I saw “Star Wars” in its entirety, and that was mainly because of Harrison Ford.  He was big time by then, and I wanted to see his take on Hans Solo.

In retrospect, it was a ridiculous reaction.

I think the same thing about the Mac/PC wars.  I own a PC, and always have — mainly because an overwhelming majority of the business world operates on PCs.  I have worked on a Mac in the past, and I personally didn’t find the transition from PC to Mac to be difficult.  I think both platforms have their pros and cons, and I am entertained by the vehement love/hate that people display for the different platforms.

I just don’t see it.

But, that’s me.  I like PCs.  I like Mac’s.  I like “Star Trek.”  I like “Star Wars.”  (Okay, I’ll always like “Star Trek” a bit more…it was my first sci-fi.)

And I love Harry Potter and “Twilight.”  To me, they are very different and are not competing or attempting to muscle one another out at the box office.

Can’t we all just get along?

Living dead

I’m headed to New Orleans tomorrow on business, and I’m pretty excited.  To be there on Halloween could be the freakiest thing ever.

I mean, I don’t think that the creator of ‘True Blood’ simply imagined all that stuff.  I’ve been to New Orleans before, and there’s a mystical quality about the city that makes you think it’s perfectly feasible that vampires and shape shifters walk amongst us.

I’ll be disappointed if they don’t.

What I do think the series ‘True Blood’ and the movie ‘Twilight’ misrepresent is how good looking the undead would be (or are, if you accept that they are real).  As I mentioned, I’ve been to New Orleans before; I didn’t see anyone like Robert Pattinson or Stephen Meyer or Alexander Skarsgård in the French Quarter.  Most of the people I’ve seen in the past have eaten a few too many beignets or are weaving from the effects of a hurricane or two.

(As we all know, vampires can handle their drink.)

Of course, the last time I was in New Orleans, I wasn’t on the lookout for the undead, either.  That was a time “B.C.” (before Cullen).  Now, after having seen both seasons of ‘True Blood’ and having read and seen ‘Twilight’ more times than any woman my age should admit, I know what to look for:

  • Pale skin, much like my own
  • Unsettling courtesy
  • An intense focus on me — so refreshing
  • A sparkle or two, but somewhere belong drag queen
  • Into necks

As I mentioned, I am on business in New Orleans, so I will have to fit in my study of the undead after my conference work.  But, who knows?  That just might be the best place to start looking.

Bwha ha ha ha…

 

 

More vampires

Dear ‘True Blood’ writers:

I started watching your show because of your clever ad campaign featuring vampires. They’re hot right now, as you are well aware. And Bill Compton? He’s really hot.

The first year of the series, you kept me and no doubt a lot of ‘True Blood’ viewers very happy. It was all Sookie and Bill and the whole vamp storyline. Good times in Bon Temps.

Now, it’s season two. You’ve added yummy vampire Eric to the mix. I never thought I’d meet a vampire on ‘True Blood’ to rival my love for Bill, but there he is. I want more Eric…and more Bill to battle Eric for Sookie’s affections.

But what is this? Some weirdo she-devil vibrating in the woods? Making Tara and every other local in Bon Temps have freakish black eyes and bad behavior? In my house, we call this storyline the elongated commercial break before the real players — the vamps — come back on-screen.

The show’s called ‘True Blood.’  Show us more of it.