Kitty's Corner

Subscribe to RSS feed

Posts tagged with "Event"

New Year's Eve

, ,

I saw the movie "New Years Eve" a little while ago, but completely forgot to review it. doh

Anyway - better late than never, and we're still in the same ol' year for a little while yet, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Anyway - "New Year's Eve" is a movie about a whole bunch of different people, and how they approach New Year's Eve. We meet two couples who await the birth of their respective children. We meet two lonely people who get trapped in an elevator together, and we meet an old man who is trying to enjoy his last New Year's Eve as he lays on his deathbed. We meet many more, and all the characters are heading towards one thing: New Year's Eve and the culmination in New York's Times Square with the ball dropping at the stroke of midnight.

The movie is packed with celebrities.

Laura is a food caterer (Katherine Heigl), who once had an affair with a rock star, Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi). Sarah Jessica Parker plays the mother of a 15 year old who fights to not have to stay in on New Year's Eve. Hillary Swank plays the executive of the ball drop event. There's Robert de Niro, who plays the dying old man, and Halle Berry who is his nurse. Michelle Pfeifer plays the role of a middle aged woman, who yearns to have her dreams come true, and Zac Efron is the messenger boy who dedicates his evening to helping her out. James Belushi and Matthew Broderick is also in the movie, along with a huge bunch of others.



This is basically a romcom. I've heard lots of people compare it with "Valentine's Day", but I haven't seen that one, so I can't join in that conversation. What I do know is that I saw this as a light hearted comedy. It's full of stereotypes - and it's told like a bunch of smaller stories, that never *really* connect.

Yes, I laughed, and yes, I cried too rolleyes , but the movie wasn't really *that* great, to be honest.

As for the actors - well, I don't really like Katherine Heigl, and Zac Efron was just plain annoying. Michelle Pfeifer should have said no thank you to the role. She didn't bring life and magic to her character at all. The only one who I really enjoyed was Robert de Niro. He just *is* a damn good actor, IMO!



It was a very nice evening - it was a gala premiere night where everybody was dressed up to party, they served champagne and cookies and chocolate before the movie, and there were goodie bags for everybody. The goodie bag contained hair products, make up remover, hand sanitizer and face cream.
I ♥ goodie bags!


star star star out of 6.

Christmas Bazaar 2011

, ,

I got free tickets to a Christmas bazaar, and I thought it would be a good opportunity to show Flarin what Danish Christmas is like, or at least what it can be like.

It started out good with lights and cosiness and stuff:



But I think that the people who arranged this bazaar had forgotten to tell the shops that it was a Christmas bazaar and not just a random market place.



There were lots of shops that sold all sorts of crap...



... and even though some of the exhibited things were cute, there were far between the actual Christmas stuff.

This toilet seat took the prize for the weirdest thing exhibited!



And the glass cats were cute, but not very Christmassy to be honest.



At least there were free Christmas cookies - or "pebernødder" as we call them here.



There was also beer, in case anybody should get thirsty!



And trolls weren't allowed. If they tried to sneak in, they would end up being decapitated and exhibited as a general warning to other trolls. devil



The real price to get in was 50 DKK (~7EUR) and I would have felt so cheated had I actually paid that amount of money. It was so not worth spending money on, and it honestly felt like a waste of time.

The Three Musketeers

, ,

Sunday was "Big Cinema Day" here, which means that you can see any movies you want at half price. It's pretty expensive to go the movies here - tickets starts at around 80DKK (>10EUR) - so this is a nice opportunity for us!

We decided to go watch two movies: "The Three Musketeers" and "Friends with Benefits". Guess who chose which! lol

So anyway - here's the first review; "The Three Musketeers".

This is not the first time Alexandre Dumas' book has been made into a film, but it's been nearly twenty years since the last one. Back then it was Kiefer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen and Oliver Platt who played the roles of the brave musketeers. Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson and Luke Evans plays Arthos, Porthos and Aramis respectively in this updated 2011 version.



All the basic elements from the book are present: A young man dreams of walking in his father's footsteps and to serve the King. He travels to Paris, where he runs into a trio of former musketeers. They reveal a conspiracy devised by Cardinal Richelieu in order to remove the very young and vulnerable king. And this is where the similarities end...

This version involves not only the traditional fight scenes in which the vastly outnumbered Musketeers trounce the opposition with style and ease, but also heavily armed airships and air battles in the sky over Paris, raids on underground hidden safes in Venice and Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), a kind of double agent, who wires herself down from a tower in Versailles, via a device hidden in her corset. Past film makers must have skipped these particular chapters, when they made their screen versions. King Louis XIII is also characterized very well, and amusingly, by Freddie Fox.

It all worked very well for me. The only actor who didn't shine was Logan Lerman, who played D'Artagnan. I didn't like the way he acted, I found him really annoying - maybe he's not 'strong' enough an actor to carry that character. Please note that the cast also includes a Dane, namely Mads Mikkelsen, who also played the leading part in Valhalla Rising, and bad guy in James Bond movie Casino Royale.

I really enjoyed this movie, and had some good laughs here and there. I especially enjoyed some of the fighting scenes, where they kind of played it in Slo Mo sequences - that was really well made.All the action sequences were very well done, quite exciting in fact - and the characters were all quite well portrayed (exception noted above), with a good amount of understated humour.

star star star star star out of 6.

Titanic

, ,

Next year it will 100 years since the unsinkable passenger liner Titanic struck an iceberg and ended her maiden voyage at the bottom of the sea.

It is and always has been a fascinating story. I think it's because that 1,517 people lost their lives to the sea that April night. 1,517 people's destinies were sealed. Men, women, children. Rich and poor. Some of them travelling in hope of finding fortune and a better life. Some of them taking a vacation, or travelling just for the pleasure of it and enjoying the trip.

It would of course be appropriate to blog about that specific ship in April 2012 when it's exactly 100 years ago the ship went down. So why do I blog about it now, you may ask. I'll tell you. It's because there's an exhibition travelling around the world. It was founded 35 years ago and has been 25 different cities around the world so far. And right now it's in Copenhagen.

So we decided to go and see it. I absolutely love the movie Titanic from 1997. I've seen it several times and I cry just as much much every time. left

(Deck for 2nd class passengers)

Anyway - I was interested in seeing the exhibition. It was a bit pricey to get in: 95DKK (12.75EUR). At the entrance we got each a mp3 player, and they came in several languages. That's pretty clever. What wasn't quite so clever was that the speaker in Danish and the one in English didn't speak for equally long periods of time. Apparently the English dude spoke either slower or had more to say about each item, and that meant that Flarin listening in English would have had to skip several endings to keep up with me, listening in Danish. And taking pictures wasn't allowed irked

(The man in the right side of the pic: Edward John Smith, captain on Titanic)

Anyway - the exhibition is a mix of photos, letters and items that used to belong to some of the victims, ship's artefacts, people's jewellery, and reconstructions of cabins. There's also a big 3D reconstruction of the main staircase, which is impressive. We also learn about the construction of the ship, the materials and techniques involved, and the working conditions - what it was like for the crew, from the Captain down to the Stokers in the engine rooms (and man, they had a hot job!) The dude on the mp3-player told us about each item or photo: who's in it, what we know about them, and so on. The coolest thing (literally) in the exhibition was a big iceberg. It wasn't as big as the one Titanic hit, but it's big. It's there so you can put your hand on it and see how long you can stand there before it gets too cold for you. It's to illustrate why so many people froze to death in the cold water, and so quickly. You can only hold your hand on it for a minute or two before it hurts too much - we were told the average person can last up to 20 minutes in water that cold, and I think even that seems a long time!


(postcard advertising for Titanic and the sister ship Olympic)

Generally I liked the exhibition. It was interesting to hear the facts about the ship, and to hear about some of the passengers and crew that were on board, and their families. It was also very interesting to learn of the huge differences in accommodation and comfort between 1st and 3rd classes. The dining rooms were amazing too, and even the 3rd class passengers didn't seem to do to badly there, although of course without any of the luxurious frills of 1st class. There were also things I found less interesting, however. For instance, there was a bit of wood, by itself, in a glass case - it wasn't even from the Titanic, but from either her sister ship or one of the ships that rescued the survivors. There was also a telescope that had once belonged to one of the Titanic's crew. It had never actually been on the Titanic though, so why it belonged in this exhibition was a mystery to me. confused

The story of the collision, the drama that followed, and the subsequent rescue is factually told, with many personal stories of those who survived and those who didn't, woven in. It's interesting, and chilling too in the inevitability of it all, as you walk around and approach the final exhibit and last narration, knowing what we know, and how it ended for so many.

Anyway - I enjoyed the tour. It lasted about an hour and fifteen minutes (would probably have lasted 5-10 minutes longer had we both being listening in English), and I think it was worth the money.

I'd recommend it. But once you've seen it, you probably don't have to go see it again.