Useless (youngwilliam) wrote,

Ears with Feet?

Real post to come! Including such hits as 'The New Stereo at Work' and 'Old British Homosexuals on TV' (the latter being actually about a rather well-praised film I finally caught on Bravo, and lived up to the well-praising).

In the meantime, if one has some time to kill (and eye protection against contrasting bright colors), might one note '' (PS: It mentions in the first post what their 'earlier LJ was'. That would be ''. Don't forget the extra 'z's, now).

Ears with feet?

S'ok. At work, my boss picked up a 'Sharp CD-ES9'; feel free to dial up a picture of it on the internet. Note though, it's not all one piece like it looks in the pictures. It's actually the main body and two speakers with each about the same size as the main body. It also strongly resembles, if I may 'wax geek' for a moment, what one would think the Decepticon Shockwave would transform into, if he turned into a stereo instead of a large Cybertronian gun.

Initially it seemed, and still does seem, a bit of overkill. The trouble is, it's sort've like a 'Macintosh' stereo. It has oodles of little bells and whistles and one mostly had to adapt oneself to work with the features instead of getting the features to work for you. So far, my primary gripes about it (since I'm the sort've person to gripe first and praise later) include there not being any actual graphic equalizer. One has to set it to Jazz or Rock or Classical or Pop or any of the other six settings or so. Balance? Not a chance. If I want to pause it, it requires the remote. If I want to set it to random shuffle, again it requires the remote. And the random shuffle is a 'true random' shuffle. Namely, you might get the same song five times in a row, you might go for hours with one CD and never hear track No.3. My largest semi-stereo related gripe about it is how, since it can take five CDs at once, I come into work to find all my CDs from the previous evening piled atop their cases atop the stereo instead of actually inside the cases. Folks shall suffer the wrath of my muttering.

Movie related bit? 'Gods and Monsters'. I do SO like this film. I meant to see it and never really got the chance until it showed up on Bravo. As usual, Brendan Frasier wasn't bad at all (his role was pretty much Cassidy Pappas -- Only Allegedly and maybe ResidentClinton might know who that is. Oh, that reminds me.. Allegedly? ResidentClinton is the fellow who lives near where you lived whom I hoped you'd get to meet. Try the theatre where I went to see Robyn Hitchcock). I have this sneaking theory that Mr.Frasier isn't actually a bad actor, but has a few flicks (like Encino Man or the latter half of Monkeybone) to live down. The director, surprisingly, didn't seem to have all that stunning of a history. I think 'Candyman II' and 'Strange Invaders' are his only previous efforts that I've seen, both of which were nowhere near as nice as 'Gods and Monsters'. G&M has cute moments, poignant moments, it'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, it was better than Cats, you'll want to see it again and again. Ok, maybe just two or three times at most. The ending (after the social affair that is cut short due to rain) shall most likely make one wince, be surprised, then laugh quite a bit.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment