I rarely make New Years resolutions but I think that it is important that I start 2012 in the right way and make an effort to change a few things.
I have alluded to this already.
My resolution is to give up all forms of gambling, be they racehorses, machines etc, until Golden Slipper Day which is Easter Saturday this year in early April.
I think three months is a good starting point. It will allow me to save a bit of money and get back onto the right trajectory financially.
When I say save money, obviously gambling has its risks and lately I haven't been very sensible with my gambling. Hence the urge to stop and shake off the reckless spending.
I hope to save quite a deal of money in 2012 and I have even drawn up a budget to help me work out where my money is going.
I have to finalise that in the next couple of days.
I also need to find a couple of extra activities to take the focus off the gambling which is important because of my job.
So, here's to a 2012 that will see plenty of positive growth.
Friday, December 30, 2011
We Bought A Zoo
I guess the title takes away any need to guess what the movie We Bought A Zoo is about!
Matt Damon plays widower Benjamin Mee, a man struggling to move on from the death of his wife and raise their two children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones).
Looking for a new start, Mee searches for a suitable new residence and the one house that speaks to him happens to be attached to a zoo.
If he buys the house he buys the zoo and the responsibility for reopening it - and against the advice of his brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) he takes the leap.
The zoo has its own motley crew of employees led by the beautiful Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johannson), who isn't entirely certain that Benjamin knows what he has got himself into.
In the wrong hands this could have been a depressing movie - Damon's character spends a lot of time grieving (though not obviously a lot of the time) over his wife - but there's plenty of optimism there as well. His relationship with his two children is a focus and they are very different connections, as you'd expect when one is a teenage boy and the other is an innocent seven-year-old girl who, SPOILER, still believes in the Easter Bunny.
What We Bought A Zoo does right is in the chemistry the characters have with each other, and that includes the animals - the 17-year-old tiger Spar is a major player in the film.
It's a strong cast, Matt Damon playing a father of a teenager makes you feel a bit old, and with Scarlett in there as well there's the added glow she contributes to her movies as well. Seriously, her character is quite sweet.
It's not a drop everything and rush to the cinema type of movie, but it is well done, has an appealing cast and a poignant story. A 7.5 out of 10.
Matt Damon plays widower Benjamin Mee, a man struggling to move on from the death of his wife and raise their two children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones).
Looking for a new start, Mee searches for a suitable new residence and the one house that speaks to him happens to be attached to a zoo.
If he buys the house he buys the zoo and the responsibility for reopening it - and against the advice of his brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) he takes the leap.
The zoo has its own motley crew of employees led by the beautiful Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johannson), who isn't entirely certain that Benjamin knows what he has got himself into.
In the wrong hands this could have been a depressing movie - Damon's character spends a lot of time grieving (though not obviously a lot of the time) over his wife - but there's plenty of optimism there as well. His relationship with his two children is a focus and they are very different connections, as you'd expect when one is a teenage boy and the other is an innocent seven-year-old girl who, SPOILER, still believes in the Easter Bunny.
What We Bought A Zoo does right is in the chemistry the characters have with each other, and that includes the animals - the 17-year-old tiger Spar is a major player in the film.
It's a strong cast, Matt Damon playing a father of a teenager makes you feel a bit old, and with Scarlett in there as well there's the added glow she contributes to her movies as well. Seriously, her character is quite sweet.
It's not a drop everything and rush to the cinema type of movie, but it is well done, has an appealing cast and a poignant story. A 7.5 out of 10.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Adventures of Tintin
Having not been a follower as a younger person I approached The Adventures of Tintin with a fair deal of optimism based on some good reviews and the impression from the trailer.
With Steven Spielberg as the major driving force behind it there was never really any concern and I'd certainly recommend Tintin to those who like a bit of fun and adventure.
Tintin (Jamie Bell) is a journalist who stumbles upon a rare model of a pirate ship called the Unicorn and soon discovers there is a secret behind it as several shady characters seek to purchase, then steal, it from him.
With his trusty dog Snowy (easily the coolest animated dog since Gromit) by his side Tintin follows the trail via all kinds of unlikely means and that leads him to Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), the lone descendant of the captain of the Unicorn.
Of course there are bad guys. Mr. Rackham (Daniel Craig) will stop at nothing to get his hands on all three models to unlock the secret of the Unicorn and, as we find out, settle a personal score.
Aside from the almost faultless animation, Spielberg has given us a very accessible and entertaining couple of hours and in doing so established a viable series. It's filled with mystery, adventure and comedy and the irresistible Snowy steals a lot of the scenes.
I saw a 2D session, mainly because I think 3D is over rated and has rarely added to the cinematic experience.
I saw this with my 10 year old nephew and he enjoyed it and didn't seem to be over his head at all. So that's a positive and I wouldn't hesitate in taking a youngster to see it. An 8 out of 10.
With Steven Spielberg as the major driving force behind it there was never really any concern and I'd certainly recommend Tintin to those who like a bit of fun and adventure.
Tintin (Jamie Bell) is a journalist who stumbles upon a rare model of a pirate ship called the Unicorn and soon discovers there is a secret behind it as several shady characters seek to purchase, then steal, it from him.
With his trusty dog Snowy (easily the coolest animated dog since Gromit) by his side Tintin follows the trail via all kinds of unlikely means and that leads him to Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), the lone descendant of the captain of the Unicorn.
Of course there are bad guys. Mr. Rackham (Daniel Craig) will stop at nothing to get his hands on all three models to unlock the secret of the Unicorn and, as we find out, settle a personal score.
Aside from the almost faultless animation, Spielberg has given us a very accessible and entertaining couple of hours and in doing so established a viable series. It's filled with mystery, adventure and comedy and the irresistible Snowy steals a lot of the scenes.
I saw a 2D session, mainly because I think 3D is over rated and has rarely added to the cinematic experience.
I saw this with my 10 year old nephew and he enjoyed it and didn't seem to be over his head at all. So that's a positive and I wouldn't hesitate in taking a youngster to see it. An 8 out of 10.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol
I tend to just brush over Tom Cruise movies these days. I can't say exactly why but he just doesn't seem to do it for me anymore, for want of a better way of putting it.
After butchering the talents of Philip Seymour Hoffman in MI3 I did approach Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (don't know why they couldn't have just called it MI4) with a little bit of caution.
Happily, Tom Cruise delivered here going back to the role of super spy Ethan Hunt. What makes him likable is that he doesn't seem to take himself too seriously and seems like he's having a bit of fun.
With movies like the Bourne series and the new James Bond movies surpassing what Cruise did in the first two films, therefore making his effort in the third one look ordinary, he has definitely paid attention and the writers have gone all out to try and at least match those films.
A solid support cast helps and plenty of 'no-way' action scenes (the one on the Burj in Dubai comes to mind) make MI4 quite entertaining.
When the IMF is closed down by the US president Hunt and his team are forced to go rogue to stop a terrorist called Hendricks (Michael Niqvist from the Swedish Dragon Tattoo series) the gathers his small team and travels the globe to fulfil their mission. The team consists of a long time tech-turned agent Benji (Simon Pegg), who provides a lot of the comic relief, and agents Jane (Paula Patton) and Brandt (the excellent Jeremy Renner).
There are a number of spectacular scenes - the aforementioned Burj scene, the sandstorm chase is pretty cool if completely unbelievable, the Kremlin blowing up... to name a few.
I'd have to say even if you have cooled on Tom Cruise in the past few years but enjoyed the original couple of movies then you'll be in for a treat. A 7 out of 10.
After butchering the talents of Philip Seymour Hoffman in MI3 I did approach Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (don't know why they couldn't have just called it MI4) with a little bit of caution.
Happily, Tom Cruise delivered here going back to the role of super spy Ethan Hunt. What makes him likable is that he doesn't seem to take himself too seriously and seems like he's having a bit of fun.
With movies like the Bourne series and the new James Bond movies surpassing what Cruise did in the first two films, therefore making his effort in the third one look ordinary, he has definitely paid attention and the writers have gone all out to try and at least match those films.
A solid support cast helps and plenty of 'no-way' action scenes (the one on the Burj in Dubai comes to mind) make MI4 quite entertaining.
When the IMF is closed down by the US president Hunt and his team are forced to go rogue to stop a terrorist called Hendricks (Michael Niqvist from the Swedish Dragon Tattoo series) the gathers his small team and travels the globe to fulfil their mission. The team consists of a long time tech-turned agent Benji (Simon Pegg), who provides a lot of the comic relief, and agents Jane (Paula Patton) and Brandt (the excellent Jeremy Renner).
There are a number of spectacular scenes - the aforementioned Burj scene, the sandstorm chase is pretty cool if completely unbelievable, the Kremlin blowing up... to name a few.
I'd have to say even if you have cooled on Tom Cruise in the past few years but enjoyed the original couple of movies then you'll be in for a treat. A 7 out of 10.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Jack and Jill
If I needed convincing that Adam Sandler's laugh out loud comedy days are over then Jack and Jill pretty much sealed it.
It's not that there isn't the odd laugh here and there, it's more that Sandler is still pumping out the same comedy now that he was in the 90s and it is simply not funny any more.
His latest retread sees him play twins Jack and Jill Sadelstein. Yep, he's going drag.
Jack is a family man with a wife and two children and he works, successfully, in advertising. In short, he has it all.
But his blissful life is interrupted on a yearly basis when his twin sister Jill visits for the holidays and always overstays her welcome.
Playing both characters is fair enough but Sandler really doesn't try being even a little feminine when it comes to being Jill.
After a series of embarrassing mishaps Jack invites Jill to the basketball where he has courtside seats and is trying to convince Al Pacino to appear in a commercial for him. Probably the highlight of the movie, the cameo of Johnny Depp, comes in the basketball scene.
Somehow Pacino is taken by Jill and relentlessly pursues her. Jack tries to seize the opportunity to secure his services for the commercial and goes to many lengths to seal the deal.
You can't help but shake your head and wonder why Al Pacino chose to be in this movie, as himself - this is no Being John Malkovich. He comes off looking pretty ordinary, which is a shame.
I need go no further. Sandler's comedies are now on the refuse list until he produces something that gets rave reviews. I just can't believe this is the same guy that produced a stunning performance in Reign Over Me a few years ago. It's not funny and I'd be steering clear of this one unless you really, really must see it.
A 4 out of 10.
It's not that there isn't the odd laugh here and there, it's more that Sandler is still pumping out the same comedy now that he was in the 90s and it is simply not funny any more.
His latest retread sees him play twins Jack and Jill Sadelstein. Yep, he's going drag.
Jack is a family man with a wife and two children and he works, successfully, in advertising. In short, he has it all.
But his blissful life is interrupted on a yearly basis when his twin sister Jill visits for the holidays and always overstays her welcome.
Playing both characters is fair enough but Sandler really doesn't try being even a little feminine when it comes to being Jill.
After a series of embarrassing mishaps Jack invites Jill to the basketball where he has courtside seats and is trying to convince Al Pacino to appear in a commercial for him. Probably the highlight of the movie, the cameo of Johnny Depp, comes in the basketball scene.
Somehow Pacino is taken by Jill and relentlessly pursues her. Jack tries to seize the opportunity to secure his services for the commercial and goes to many lengths to seal the deal.
You can't help but shake your head and wonder why Al Pacino chose to be in this movie, as himself - this is no Being John Malkovich. He comes off looking pretty ordinary, which is a shame.
I need go no further. Sandler's comedies are now on the refuse list until he produces something that gets rave reviews. I just can't believe this is the same guy that produced a stunning performance in Reign Over Me a few years ago. It's not funny and I'd be steering clear of this one unless you really, really must see it.
A 4 out of 10.
Monday, December 05, 2011
The first step
OK, so I have a problem.
It started fairly innocently really. I was at my aunt's funeral a couple of years ago and dad gave me $50 to have a few bets on the horses.
After looking over the race fields I decided to head to the poker machine (or slot machine for anyone in the USA) area and spend it there. Guess what? I ended up with about $150.
They don't call it beginner's luck for nothing.
Technically, I wasn't a beginner. When I turned 18 I decided it was something of a rite of passage if I played the machines - so I invested $20 and played for a while and wound up collecting $20. Harmless, really.
Somehow after that experience in Orange I started to play the machines a bit more. I'd put in $20 here or there. Again, harmless fun if I lost.
Over time it grew to putting in $50 at the start and increasing the wager. I've never gone higher than that as a starting point but quite often I haven't stopped at that initial outlay.
Somewhere in the human brain is a switch that seems to stop the common sense part of your mind and allows you to think that you can win your money back and then some. Even though you know that at best it comes down to random luck and at worst it is geared towards you losing, you still think that.
I don't know how else to explain it. I know you can't win in the long run. The short term you can get some wins but you're kidding yourself if you think it can be sustained.
Out of nothing this habit has become a problem. I vow that it won't have any further negative effect on me, it's not fun and I can see that it has the potential to grow into a bigger problem.
Why bet on pure chance with a machine when it is designed for you to lose? I've spent most of my professional life working in the horse racing industry and I know all about risk. With the horses there are factors that can eliminate certain outcomes, with the machines you have no control - it's all down to pure chance and, as they say in casinos, the house always wins.
So I have taken the first step - this is a problem that can be fixed.
Stick with what you know and back yourself, not a machine.
I must be strong in keeping myself in line and then what has become a bad habit can return to something that I tried once and moved on, once again.
Why is it, though, that a habit (particularly a bad one) is so easy to start but so difficult to finish?
It started fairly innocently really. I was at my aunt's funeral a couple of years ago and dad gave me $50 to have a few bets on the horses.
After looking over the race fields I decided to head to the poker machine (or slot machine for anyone in the USA) area and spend it there. Guess what? I ended up with about $150.
They don't call it beginner's luck for nothing.
Technically, I wasn't a beginner. When I turned 18 I decided it was something of a rite of passage if I played the machines - so I invested $20 and played for a while and wound up collecting $20. Harmless, really.
Somehow after that experience in Orange I started to play the machines a bit more. I'd put in $20 here or there. Again, harmless fun if I lost.
Over time it grew to putting in $50 at the start and increasing the wager. I've never gone higher than that as a starting point but quite often I haven't stopped at that initial outlay.
Somewhere in the human brain is a switch that seems to stop the common sense part of your mind and allows you to think that you can win your money back and then some. Even though you know that at best it comes down to random luck and at worst it is geared towards you losing, you still think that.
I don't know how else to explain it. I know you can't win in the long run. The short term you can get some wins but you're kidding yourself if you think it can be sustained.
Out of nothing this habit has become a problem. I vow that it won't have any further negative effect on me, it's not fun and I can see that it has the potential to grow into a bigger problem.
Why bet on pure chance with a machine when it is designed for you to lose? I've spent most of my professional life working in the horse racing industry and I know all about risk. With the horses there are factors that can eliminate certain outcomes, with the machines you have no control - it's all down to pure chance and, as they say in casinos, the house always wins.
So I have taken the first step - this is a problem that can be fixed.
Stick with what you know and back yourself, not a machine.
I must be strong in keeping myself in line and then what has become a bad habit can return to something that I tried once and moved on, once again.
Why is it, though, that a habit (particularly a bad one) is so easy to start but so difficult to finish?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)