bootie LA

a couple weeks ago zach, nellie and i met up with dave and his harem and went to bootie la's a very bootie christmas. it was pretty fantastic. dave found these guys a few years ago. they combine the best of all music worlds: techno, mash-ups and christmas music. they played (spun?) all the songs that we already loved, plus some new ones. zach, nellie and i bailed after a couple of hours, but dave stayed most of the night. that guy has some sort of dance energy reserve. he can last hours. of course he did have a harem to entertain, so he couldnt really tire.

anyways, christmas is around the corner and i meant to share these sooner so people could enjoy them throughout the entire holiday season. hopefully you'll still get a kick out of them. whether you love them or you cant believe how ridiculous they are, they are guaranteed to make you smile. they wont make you want to vomit like those kay jewelers commercials. that one with the deaf couple is the worst. nothing against deaf people, but the commercial makes nellie want to vomit.

you can listen to all of the songs at the link above. here are some of my favorites:

'imagine santa' is just a incredible mash-up. maybe the best one ever. two songs that you wouldn't expect to hear together, yet somehow are a perfect blend.

'every christmas you fake' - proof that even p-diddy gets into the christmas cheer.

'are you gonna stop the white x-mas' - just all over the place. christmas chaos. good chaos.

'christmas bop' - this is one from the new album. i really enjoyed this one, but that is probably because i love the song blitzkrieg bop. still, it's a great example of an christmas mash-up. it takes a great song and then just starts throwing bits of many different christmas songs throughout the song. so ridiculous and random, but so fun. i dont know how you can listen to it and not laugh. so great.

i hope you enjoy. merry christmas.

double dipped

on saturday night nellie and i double dipped and saw two movies. we went to the theater planning on seeing either 'invictus' or 'the blind side.' we struggled with the decision, but ultimately ended up going to see invictus. conveniently, right when we were getting out of invictus, there was a showing of 'the blind side' that had just started. since we didnt have a babysitter or any other obligation to attend to and since it's always better to watch 4 1/2 hours of movies instead of just 2, we decided to go for it.

so both movies were good but i think i actually liked 'the blind side' better. both are amazing stories, but i think that invictus was almost too difficult of a story to tell. there is just so much to the story, that it seems a little to difficult to pull off in 2- 2 1/2 hours. were it any other director besides clint eastwood, i would say maybe it was the director's fault, but if he can't even pull it off, i dont think anyone could. there was just too much to tackle...even for rugby players (zing!).

invictus is about the south african rugby team that helped unite a nation that was in serious turmoil over the recent election of nelson mandela and blacks being afforded all of the same opportunities as white people. i just think that hours alone could have been spent really showing the viewer how bad it was in south africa in the early 90s. the movie does deal with it, but in order to really make the rugby victory meaningful, you really have to be sucked in to what it meant to the country and you need a decent understanding of what the people were going through. maybe other people could have pulled it off, but i didnt really get sucked in emotionally to what was happening and what the people were going through. as such, there just wasn't as many goosebump moments in invictus as i would have anticipated. i was hoping for more moments where i had a lump in my throat and would think, 'sports are just awesome.' and i think that was because there was a lack of connection with the story which is due to all of the many layers. dont get me wrong, it was good, just not amazing. i could be off on this and could have had too high of expectations. but when its clint eastwood, morgan freeman and matt damon, how can you not be expecting greatness?

maybe that's why 'the blind side' was really good. it has sandra bullock so you naturally enter with low expectations. she is cute and fun, but her movies usually aren't very moving and make you want to punch yourself in the face rather than ponder greater things in life. she did great though and was highly entertaining, at last. just the opposite of invictus, i think blind side worked because it was more of a simple story to tell in that they just had to deal with the boy and telling his story. granted, many people could easily botch that simple task, but it's potentially a lot easier to tell the story of a family that helps a homeless high school boy than the story of a country that had it's centuries long race issues resolved by a rugby game. in one, you have to get the viewers up to speed with a country's history in 10 minutes. the other, you just have to get them up to speed with the first 16 years of a boy's life, which is pretty easy in this situation: he's from the projects and his mom is a drug addict. no need to say more, we pretty much get it.

again, both movies are good and worth seeing. both not really sports movies and both are pretty different so it is hard to compare them, but what's the point of this post and seeing both on the same night if you aren't going to compare them? i think an easy way to do it was in the closing credits. in both movies they show you photos of the actual people and players from the stories that were just told. in blind side, i got the goosebumps and the lump in my throat. i felt more connected to the story and so it made it more touching to see the actual people. not that invictus isn't touching and powerful, but not much connection. no lumps at the end of invictus. and the lumps never lie.

tragic and mind-boggling

just a disclaimer, not that all of my posts are funny and/or light-hearted, but this one isn't. although it is short. i've been thinking about it since i heard about it on the radio the other day.

here is a news story of a family of 4 that was killed in a car crash over thanksgiving weekend. the family was heading back to their home after having spent the thanksgiving holiday in hawaii. tragic and sad. they haven't confirmed that the 19 year-old driver was drunk, but his license had previously been suspended for a year because of a prior drunk driving accident. the driver later died at the hospital.

and, if you didn't think the story could get worse, you underestimated society:

here is a related story of a man and a woman who just days after the family died, broke into the family's house, stole all their items and fled in the family's van. opportunity knocks right? fortunately they were caught. but what has to happen in your life to get you to the point where after hearing about a family of four being killed in an auto accident, the first thing you think about is that their home is now vacant and should be easy to rob? at least these people help keep josh employed.

such a bummer

this whole story sort of bums me out and it really shouldn't. i shouldn't be fooled by athletes or celebrities or expect too much out of them. i think this one is a bummer because you always want to be able to relate to an athlete or celebrity. sometimes you just cant. for instance, i cant relate to derek jeter at all. he's a shortstop on the biggest baseball team of all time. as sure as the seasons will change, you can expect him to bounce from one supermodel girlfriend to another on a quarterly basis. he and i dont have much in common. not that i have much in common with tiger woods. he's the first billionaire athlete. he's a killer on the golf course. all sporting greats are. jordan, ali, tiger, even kobe bryant. its not enough to beat you, they have to dominate you and rip your heart out. the passion, the drive to win, the work ethic, stopping at nothing to be the best: not the greatest personality traits by any means, but it is pretty admirable. part of me, and i think part of most people, wish they had that passion and could channel it towards some endeavor. few do. but almost all of them are successful in one way or another.

but even though he and i aren't the same in that regard, tiger still seemed like he was 'a normal guy.' i liked him because i felt i could relate to him (i still like him, just bummed about his decisions). he grew up in cypress, right here in southern california. i lived in the neighboring city of garbage grove. he doesnt come from money. he's not some country club boy. despite all his money, he and his wife didnt have a nanny. they insisted on raising their kids. it appeared as though off the course, he was a normal guy and for whatever reason, it made me like him more. it's like george clooney. i've always liked him and the movies he did. after i read this article awhile ago, i was smitten (it's long, but a good read). these guys dont have lives like you and i, but you always hope they do. which is why it's nice to hear about tiger raising his own kids or read about george clooney crawling in the attic, and always a bummer when you are let down. i know they arent role models. i get that. most of them let you know pretty early on that you dont want your kids to grow up to become like them. that's just the thing though, there are so few that make you even believe that they might be a decent person and role model. just a bummer when yet another doesn't pan out.