Okay, I just found this page and I thought it was sooo fucking cool that I am posting it here, cause we all love winamp, it kicks the Llama's Ass. The Cool Winamp Logo Page. Ps. I am so making a winamp T-Shirt and sticker. I am also gonna ad a winamp logo to the site somewhere cause I use it all the time and it is free. Keep on rocking Winamp

I took my computer to my school's auction tonight and did the slide show. It went well and I got paid 200$. Sweet eh? When I got home and reattached my computer, I found that my monitor worked much better and my webcam produced higher quality images, nice right? Okay well thats the end of this post. Goodnight everyone.

Now, a review of Dancer in the Dark.

Okay, before watching Dancer in the Dark I was expecting to absolutely love it. My film teacher who shares a similar taste im movies with me loves it. My freind Vez who also shares a similar taste in movies love it. My brother, he also loved it. Despite this bias, I did not love it. In fact, I think it was dull, trite, and poorly done. Granted, Bjork is at times really amazing, at others though, she seems flimsy and unconvincing, almost as if she is not even sure what roll she is playing, which is the feeling I got the entire picture. The supporting characters, Gene her son, Bill the neighboor and Kathy the freind, are terribly under developed, seriously hindering any understanding of their motivations or rolls in the film. Bjork's actions are confusing and since the entire film rests on the murder she commits, which was really unbelievable considering there were so many other options for her, besides killing her nieghboor. I felt little sympathy for her at the end because she, regardless of all the information she did not tell the court, which possibly would've saved her life, did commit murder. Not that I support the death penalty, I just understand why she recieved the death penalty, she commited murder. Hiding the information from the court implies that Bjork believes that Vision is more important then Mother hood. Now this is possibly the weekest point of the film. I read about Guld Heart, the german fairy tail that this film is based on. That story is about sacrafices that good natured people make. Bjorks sacrafice is her life for her sons vision. Clearly, she believes that one is more important than the other, an obviously incorrect assumption. I mean comon! Are we suppose to believe that the only thing Bjork could have possibly given her son is Vision, which Ironically is returned to her at the end of the film when Kathy presents Bjork her sons glasses. I believe that a mother can provide more than just vision - who knows what couldve happened to save his vision in the future, I just think it was a poor attempt at showing a careless and selfless decision. Like the movie is trying to say how good someone can be, what following one's heart can yield, the importance of selfless acts, the value of sacrafice and such, but Stienbeck's book do that in a much better fashion. I am not going to explain that point, I am just presenting the difference. And besides, the point is trite and hackneyed to begin with. Besides the week story, I thought the film was not made in an interesting manner and may as well have been a book. I would have liked to have seen some interesting shots and possible visual tropes, who knows? Well that is it.