(no subject)

So . . . I don't understand my body. Is there anyone out there good with science who can help me out here? The story involves drinking and a little vomiting, but I'll try to keep the TMI to a minimum.

I went out with Rikki last night and had a few beers and a couple shots, which is far less than I've had to drink in the past. And I had the sense to eat before we went out. Nonetheless, I woke up this morning with the closest to a genuine hangover I've ever had (I have yet to experience that throbbing headache and misery thing; maybe because I'm young, or because I always try not to go to bed until I'm reasonably sober, or maybe I'm just one of those people who doesn't get that hungover). Complete with extra nausea. Which does make sense, because combine my usual delicate morning stomach with post-night out stomach, and yes, definite nausea. The worst I've had after a night out, which doesn't make sense, because again with the having had a lot more before.

So, I decided some nice fresh water instead of coffee would be just the thing, my reasoning being that hangovers are partially the result of dehydration, and that coffee might irritate my stomach.

The water just made me feel worse, and ultimately came back up. So I gave up and made coffee, assuming that it would also come back up, but at least I wouldn't have skipped my morning coffee.

Not only did it not come back up, but it settled my stomach almost immediately. WTF? Water makes me yack, but a strong, acidic drink makes it all better? Am I missing something? Would the acid in orange juice have had the same effect, or was it the caffiene specifically? Did I just start on the water too soon? Did the yacking itself help things out? When we went to Denny's afterwards, should I have had something heavier than salad and toast, even though the thought of anything heavier (especially at Denny's) made me want to gag? Or was it just a weird weekend?

Hell, maybe I just got a touch of food poisoning from the Thai food I ordered last night. I dunno.

(As a random aside - I do intend to use a personalized mood theme, since someone has made and offered to share a Huckabees one, but I think I'm gonna miss the little dead fox that represents "curious." It's just so bizarre.)

(no subject)

Also, I really need to stop following the Pedro story. It's just pissing me off. Because god forbid he should leave with a little grace and dignity. Heaven forfend that he should just let things lie.

Not our Petey. Oh no. He has to attack the Red Sox ownership, attack the management, demand to know where his prima donna reputation came from (way to have a modicum of self-awareness there, dude), and then he tops it all off by slagging on Schilling for, as far as I can tell, getting attention even though he's older than Pedro, and just generally kills every chance that we might eventually get over his departure and remember him with fondness instead of bitterness.

The response of the organization has pretty much been, ". . . yeah. Uh, we have better things to worry about, because we have moved on. Pedro might wanna try that."

Schilling, however, seems genuinely hurt and confused by Pedro's snotty remarks about him. To be quasi-fair, Pedro was fed some highly spun version of Schilling's remarks by the New York media, so he probably thinks that Schill was being nasty, but his response - including such gems as "I'm way over Schilling as a pitcher" - was flat-out childish and uncalled for. Not that I'm biased or anything.

So, yeah. You suck, Pedro, and I hate you, and I might forgive you someday for leaving and even for the classless manner in which you did it (keeping the Sox dangling to get as much money as possible out of someone else, then turning around and declaring yourself heartbroken and unloved), but I'll never forgive you for dragging everyone through the mud and spitting on your former team - and, by proxy, your former fans - in the process. I'm almost sorry that I've already granted A-Rod the title of Princess, because damn, would it look good on you.

(See why I need to stop following this? Hoedogg was right, it's not worth the energy, but I just can't seem to let it go. If I stop reading about it, and never again cave in to the temptation to buy a copy of the Boston Herald because it has Sad Curt on the cover, I might be able to move on.)

(no subject)

Am weary and must sleep, but quick post first.

Have received new computer. As it is a Mac, and thus assumes that its user is the biggest imbecile to ever exist in the past, present, or future, it was extremely easy to set up. And, as it turns out, it comes equipped with a wireless card, so I don't have to go out and buy one. =D It is shiny and beautiful and I love it.

Also, Betsey and I got together tonight and attempted to see Blade: Trinity. However, as it turned out, the listings were wrong and the showtime we had chosen was axctually a closed-captioned showing of Bridget Jones: But The First Movie Was So Good, What The Hell Happened?. So, we had about thirty seconds to choose a different movie, and settled on A Series of Unfortunate Events, based primarily on the fact that it was starting at that moment.

I'd meant to see it anyway - I realized after seeing Huckabees that I'd inadvertently seen the first three of Jude Law's eighty-four new movies this year (okay, technically two and a third, but I really had better things to do than sit through Sky Captain), so I decided to try and see the rest of them, just because. I was wary, though, because I like the books, and considered Jim Carrey as Count Olaf to be a tragic miscasting, the kind that can ruin any chance that a movie-based-onna-book might have to be a successful adaptation. I fully expected to see the typical Carrey comedy persona, which is hideously wrong for the character. (I think Jeffrey Combs, with his genius for playing a seriocomic role in perfect deadpan, would have been a great Olaf. But I digress.) I mean, sure, Carrey was so good in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind that I eventually forgot that I was watching him, but I attributed that to a director with the ability to rein him in and force him to perform rather than pander.

I should mention here that I lost interest in Jim Carrey shortly after The Truman Show, just to give you a rough indication of how I remember him: An actor with potential held back by painfully overplaying any comedic scenes.

It has finally become clear that, sometime during the intervening six or seven years, he decided to ditch the schtick (mostly) and learn how to act for real.

Rather than the hammy, wink-at-the-camera performance that I feared expected, Carrey instead opts to camp it up. It's a subtle but crucial difference, difficult to explain but patently obvious when you see it for yourself. Sure, there are moments where the old Carrey persona breaks through, but overall he opts to act out the humour rather than whack the audience over the head with it. I ended up enjoying his performance immensely, which is such a relief I can't even tell you.

As for the movie itself - well, I did want to keep this semi-short, so I'll have to restrain myself to the two points that were (after Jim Carrey) the biggest for me. First, the look and mood of the film are excellent. It's grim and Gothic, Victorian in appearance while still incorporating modern details. It's just gorgeous and really works with the darkness of the story.

Second of all, speaking of the darkness of the story, I did not appreciate the ending one bit. It goes with the storyline of the books, but the tone suddenly changes entirely and becomes bright, sentimental, and hopeful. Up till then, the movie has preserved the books' grimness almost too well (some of the scenes, which are black humour in the books, are more disturbing in the movie), so the ending is quite jarring and very obviously Hollywoodized.

Okay, I definitely have to go bed now. Goodnight!