The Doctor's BrushPicks

Dental hygiene has been important to me for a long time, probably because I had a mouth full of rotten teeth as a kid. Back then, I used to steal money from my mother's purse, typically $20 at a time, and then I'd go to my neighborhood convenience store or grocery store, and I'd spend the whole shebang on candy. $20 doesn't buy much today, but in the late 1970s, it bought about 1/3 of a paper grocery bag worth of candy bars and hard candies, or about 1/2 when I bought bulk candy from my nearby Alpha Beta. If my mom didn't have that much money to steal, I'd take less and buy powdered sugar. If you fill a baggie with powdered sugar, you can nibble off a corner and suck the sugar out slowly for hours.

Needless to say, a woman who doesn't notice $20 missing from her wallet also wasn't much of a stickler for enforcing her child's dental hygiene regimen. Consequently, I had cavities and fillings aplenty. When my adult molars started coming in, I decided that I had had enough of both and decided to take better care of my teeth. I took up regular brushing and flossing. I have not been a big eater of sweets ever since.

I have experimented with many oral hygiene products over the years, including a half-dozen or more varieties of dental picks. While dental picks are not as effective as floss (contrary to the claims made by The Doctor's BrushPicks), they are far more convenient and can be carried and discretely used outside the home. Trust me: People will look at you funny if you whip out dental floss after a Father's Day meal at the local steakhouse. And forget about slipping sugar packets between your teeth; you will run afoul of your wife, if she catches you.

The problem with most dental picks and all regular toothpicks (read: logs) is that the tip is not skinny enough to fit between my teeth. Granted my teeth are pretty tight, as I have never had braces or corrective dental work. However, my teeth are not so tight that they are wandering all over my mouth. About a year or so ago, I took a chance on yet another variety of pick, and I have been a convert ever since.

The scale is impossible to tell from the above photo, but The Doctor's BrushPick is the same length as a regular toothpick (a little over 2.5 inches). I zoomed in pretty close so you could see the bristles on the left end, which in a more regular scale, looks about the same as a cricket's hind leg. The right side comes to a fairly sharp but flexible tip, and has a series of perpendicular lines that form a semi-abrasive texture, which also didn't show up well in the photo.

The BrushPick does what a good toothpick ought to: it removes things that are stuck between your teeth. The brush tip is highly flexible and won't irritate your gums much, especially after a couple days of use. The shaft of the brush is narrow enough to fit between even my tight teeth with no problems. The pointed end also functions well for the same or other gum-poking applications.

According to the literature on the back of the package, The Doctor's BrushPick has seven unique features (illustrated above) that make it a superior instrument of dental hygiene. Points 2 and 3 seem redundant, and points 5 and 6 seem a bit dubious as individual selling points, but OK, I can accept the creative marketing. The Doctor's pick truly is a superior product, and one that I wholeheartedly endorse.

I haven't seen the BrushPick on sale at my local grocery stores (Fry's and Safeway), but I know they are available at Walgreens. They retail for $2.99 for a package that includes two individual boxes of 60 picks. For the math impaired, that's $2.99 for 120 picks, which is pretty cheap on a per-pick average. Well worth the money in my humble opinion.

Websites: The Doctor's BrushPicks, Walgreens

Blurbs Gone Wrong: Date Night

Click here for an explanation of what this post is all about.

Netflix's original blurb:
Who knew simple dinner reservations under a different name could turn one New Jersey couple's date night so terribly upside-down? Claire (Tina Fey) and Phil (Steve Carell) Foster leave their kids with the sitter (Leighton Meester) and head out for a night on the town -- as the Tripplehorns. Shawn Levy (Just Married, Night at the Museum) directs this action-comedy; Mark Wahlberg and James Franco co-star.

Analysis:
The first sentence of this blurb isn't quite inaccurate, but it does create the impression that the Fosters made their reservation under another name. This idea is reinforced by the next line, which states that the couple intentionally assumes the identities of the Tripplehorns for the rest of the movie. That's the way I read Netflix's description, anyway. If the only thing you knew about this movie came from the trailer, you would clearly understand this is not the case -- the Fosters steal another couple's reservation but maintain their real identities throughout most of the film.

A big problem with this blurb is that it obscures the main reason behind the New Jersey couple's visit to Manhattan, where the events of the movie unfold. The trailer pretty much explains it all: the long-married couple is in a rut. That is the key point that explains why the couple would do something spontaneous in the first place. Not only does the blurb ignore the root cause of the conflict, it does not explain what the film's main source of conflict is: a case of mistaken identity runs the couple afoul of a gangster.

Inexplicably, the blurb mentions the babysitter, a clearly unimportant detail, and even goes so far as to credit the actress who played her. I'm sorry Ms. Meester, but you should not get top billing over other, bigger names who also appeared in this film, such as Mila Kunis, Ray Liotta, or even Will i Am. At least the writers of the blurb saw fit to mention Wahlberg and Franco. Unless a director is Scorsese, Kubrik, or someone of their ilk, I see no reason why a director of Hollywood fluff should be mentioned at all. Maybe other people really care about contemporary crafters of date movie fare, but not me.

New Blurb:
Tina Fey and Steve Carell are a long-married couple who suspect they are stuck in rut. Determined to jazz up their weekly date night, Phil Foster (Carell) takes his wife Claire (Fey) to an exclusive restaurant in Manhattan. Lacking reservations, the Fosters assume the identities of a no-show couple, and soon find themselves afoul of a gangster in a case of mistaken identity. Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, and Ray Liotta co-star in this action-comedy.

Meat Puppets

From left, Cris and Curt Kirkwood, and Ted Marcus

I will confess that I was never much of a Meat Puppets fan. I had heard songs by them during the latter years of high school, but they never made much of an impression on me. Later, I was exposed to many of the band's defining albums when I worked at a record store in college (I'm dating myself, lol). The only one that struck my fancy at all was "Too High To Die," chiefly because of the Puppet's breakout tune, "Backwater." That album is probably still my favorite and was, for a long time, my only tether to a truly brilliant band. Considering that the Puppets live a mere 100 miles away from me, I must also confess more than a little shame for having waited so long to fall in love with them.

I always enjoyed the twangy, guitar-driven sound of cowpunk. Some of my early favorites included X, Mojo Nixon and Skid Roper, The Dead Milkmen, and Guadalcanal Diary, to name just a few. The Puppets were an almost impossible sell, though. Something about their sound baffled me. In hindsight, I can now say it was because I was too young and narrow-minded to appreciate the musical complexity of a band like the Puppets.

I have found this to be a common theme among many of the albums that have collected dust on my shelves for the past couple decades. Back then I bought a lot of music, owing to a pretty generous employee discount from the aforementioned music store. Many of the albums I bought were based upon recommendations from my coworkers. I had the good fortune to be surrounded by many experienced aficionados of music at that store, and consequently bought a lot of music sight (or sound) unseen. Many of my coworkers were in local bands, others were merely older and more hip to styles of music I had never experienced.

I loved working at that store. It broadened my interests across all genres of music, from country to rap. Despite my expanded musical horizons, though, some albums and artists in my collection have slipped through the cracks over the years; the Puppets are among these. As I mature, I find myself increasingly attracted to bands that straddle many musical influences, and I now find myself revisiting bands that puzzled me many years earlier, like the Puppets.

My current infatuation with Puppets began after a friend posted a link on Facebook to an in-studio session with the Puppets at NPR. Hearing "Plateau" for the first time since I last listened to Nirvana's "Unplugged" album was a revelation: I missed the point of this band the first time around. Obviously, I had some appreciation for the band from earlier experiences and because of Nirvana's album, but I resolved to relisten to a bunch of the Puppets' back catalog. I replaced "Up on the Sun" and "Monsters," two albums I had sold off in college to pay rent during a couple lean months. I also picked up "Meat Puppets II," "Huevos," and "Mirage." And, of course, I still owned "Too High to Die."

The Kirkwoods' drug problems and run-ins with the law have not taken anything away from these hard workin' Phoenix boys. "Sewn" is, in my opinion, far more accessible than some of the Puppets' previous work. Perhaps it's slightly more polished production, or maybe it's just that I'm older. I dunno. That being said, much of the material on this album is pretty reminiscent of earlier albums. "Nursery Rhyme" cadges a few licks from "Up on the Sun," while "I'm Not You" and "Rotten Shame" are plucked straight out of classic Puppets' fare. Virtually every song on this album is good. Curt Kirkwood's guitar work is as brilliant as ever, which is to say, awe inspiring. And the lyrics ... weird as ever. Some of my favorites:

• "if frogs fell from the air i'd have to say i didn't care/i'd have to put them down and move off to some frogless ground" ("I'm Not You")
• "say you want nothing, that's all right/cause nothing is easy and nothing'll last you all night ... not saying nothing, that hasn't been said/and nothing is easy to say so i'll say it instead" ("Go To Your Head")
• "the rabbit hole opened so in they all went/and the height of the evening was when you said/we got computers inventing the perfect head/so we all put on our gowns and a truck brought loads of hay/and out of the fog flew a rubber baby" ("Nursery Rhyme")
• "this is the story of the history of night/from the beginning it has never seen the light/it takes a while to never understand/it holds the gift of darkness in it's hand" ("The Monkey and the Snake")

"Sewn Together" has been in constant rotation on my iPhone for at least five months now, and I have still not grown tired of it. God willing, these boys will keep cranking out the albums for another thirty years.

Hell in the Pacific

Being a fan of the 1985 sci-fi remake, "Enemy Mine," I have been meaning to watch this film for a number of years. "Enemy" was almost universally panned by critics; however, I found it to be a surprisingly touching little gem. At the video store I worked at in college, "Enemy" was part of my basic rotation of films played during each shift. I probably played that movie a hundred times before I found out that it was, in fact, based upon an earlier film.

That film was "Hell in the Pacific," the 1968 film pictured above, starring the incomparable Lee Marvin, and Japan's most celebrated actor, Toshiro Mifune. The basic plot of both movies is the same: two enemy soldiers are marooned together in total isolation, and they must rely upon each other to survive their respective inhospitable environments. "Enemy" takes place on a barren planet that is constantly bombarded with meteors and is inhabited by flesh-eating alien critters. "Hell" takes place on a small tropical island in the Pacific Ocean. In both films, the main characters are mortal enemies that must put aside their differences for the sake of survival, and to some degree, for basic human (or humanoid) companionship.

I think the thing that drew me to "Enemy" in the first place was seeing what appeared to be an American soldier developing compassion, respect, and ultimately, love for an enemy that he had never before bothered to understand. I don't know that Dennis Quaid's character in "Enemy" was actually American, but it was clearly intended to be a depiction of your standard Western force versus some foreign horde. I am no hater of America or its military, but it was refreshing to see a movie that intentionally added more dimensions to what would have otherwise been a pretty standard space-war flick.

So naturally, I was curious about "Hell in the Pacific," having grown up watching America's post-WWII offerings. For the most part, movies of the post-WWII era demonized non-Western enemies, especially Asians, which I always found annoying, being of Asian descent, myself. Japanese soldiers particularly were portrayed as either the Coke-bottle-glasses wearing, overbite buffoons of the comedies, or they were portrayed as suicidal fanatics. While I am not Japanese, it was always obvious to me that neither depiction adequately represented the complexity of a national character forged by thousands of years free from foreign invasion. Japan ended up being so interesting to me that I minored in Japanese in college. But I digress.

"Hell" was a surprisingly good film. The cinematography was exquisite, as could be expected from the scenic natural beauty that is Palau. What I found particularly interesting was how little dialog was exchanged between the main characters. Having watched "Enemy" first, I fully expected the characters to try to learn each other's languages, even if just a little. They did not. What little dialog existed in "Hell" was pretty much limited to one-way conversations, screams, and infuriated, puzzled expressions. Some of the most arresting moments between the main characters were exchanged purely through the eyes. Brilliant work by both actors to be sure, and I have to wonder what the banter was like on the set.

My sole complaint with the film was the ending, a pretty typical complaint from the info that I gleaned about the movie on the Web. The men struggle mightily in the last half of the film, working together, and seem poised for some sort of rescue by the end. That in itself is a lingering source of questions for the audience: which side will find the men and how will each character react on behalf of the other? SPOILER ALERT: STOP READING NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS MOVIE ENDS. After the men discover a bombed-out, abandoned Japanese outpost on another island, they finally have a chance to clean up, revel, and drink (with found sake). Sensing their final turning point, tensions erupt between the two, paving the way for what should have been the film's most meaningful moment. Alas, it was not to be. The sounds of artillery in the distance provide an abrupt cop-out in the final seconds of the movie: both men are blown up by a stray shell. The end. Roll credits.

The DVD's only extra is an alternate ending, which replaces the final 20 seconds or so. Instead of unexpectedly blowing up, both men exchange a laden stare before turning and going their separate ways. In my opinion, the alternate ending should have been the theatrical ending, which made for a more complex and unresolved ending. Having both characters die in such an abrupt fashion cheapened the experience and made "Enemy" stand out even more in my mind as the better film. Don't get me wrong: "Hell" is worth watching and features two stellar actors at the height of their careers.

On a personal note and apropos of almost nothing, I once stood behind Lee Marvin in line at a convenience store in Tucson, where he lived. He was, not surprisingly, buying smokes. It must have been around 1987 or so. He was wearing shorts and had the skinniest legs I've ever seen on a man. The screen really does add pounds, because he couldn't have been much heavier than me, and I was a 120-pound weakling back then.

Blurbs Gone Wrong: Harry and the Hendersons

 

Click here for an explanation of what this post is all about.

Netflix's original blurb:
Returning home from vacation, the Hendersons – George (John Lithgow), Nancy (Melinda Dillon), daughter Sarah (Margaret Langrick) and son Ernie (Joshua Rudoy) – accidentally run over a strange Bigfoot-type animal (Kevin Peter Hall). They decide to take the friendly “Harry” home and adopt him as a pet. But soon, they’re scrambling to hide their new friend from authorities and Bigfoot hunters. This charming family film won a Best Makeup Oscar.

Analysis:
The first sentence is factually accurate; although, I question the inclusion of all the character and actor names. Do we really need to know the names of any character and actor other than John Lithgow? The next sentence is factually wrong; George brings the creature back to sell what he thinks is a corpse to the highest bidder. Once the family does start to warm up to a living, breathing Bigfoot, there is a clear message throughout the remainder of the movie: Harry is not a pet. They even say so a couple times. The rest of the blurb is accurate, but again, I question the necessity for including the line about the makeup Oscar. I left it in the rewritten blurb, anyway. Hey, it's an Oscar.

New blurb:
Returning from a vacation in the woods of the Pacific Northwest, George Henderson (John Lithgow) accidentally runs over a Bigfoot with the family car. Despite his family's protests, George brings the dead beast home, only to discover that the creature is not dead, nor is it a witless animal. Hilarity ensues in this charming family film, which won an Oscar for Best Makeup.

Blurbs Gone Wrong: The Book of Eli

Click here for an explanation of what this post is all about.

Netflix's original blurb:
Determined to salvage a sacred text in order to protect humanity, Eli (Denzel Washington) goes on a quest across the country in this action-packed sci-fi adventure. Meanwhile, a blind woman named Claudia (Jennifer Beals) tries to protect her daughter, Solara (Mila Kunis). It seems that tyrannical town bully Carnegie (Gary Oldman) has taken a shine to the girl. Directed by the Hughes brothers, the film co-stars Ray Stevenson.

Analysis:
This little gem was one of the reasons I started rewriting Netflix movie descriptions in the first place. It is wrong in so many ways. First, Eli is more guarding the book than he is "salvaging" it. Second, I don't remember the movie saying he was on a quest to anywhere in particular. Third, as regards his "quest," well, his quest was to wander around and protect the book. He's a Wanderer of the Post-Apocalyptic Wasteland -- that's what he does. The basic conflict of the film is that the villain is trying to get Eli's book, which Eli defends like the wanderer stud he is.

The line about the blind woman is essentially accurate. However, my fourth major gripe is that the "town bully," as he is described, has no, I repeat no, interest in Mila Kunis' character, other than as bait to lure our Wander of the Waste. And to refer to him as a mere "town bully" slights Oldman, I think, whose stock in trade is playing psychopathic lunatics. This is, of course, Oldman's role in this movie.

The Hughes brothers should be included in the description, but frankly, I had to look up who Ray Stevenson even was. He was a somewhat minor character who probably shouldn't have made it to the description in the first place. Sorry, Ray, I'm just sayin' ...

My last piece of criticism is that to refer to it as a "sacred text" pretty much eliminates whatever doubt exists about what the book is. I know the movie is called "The Book of Eli," but there's no reason to kill every last bit of mystery about what the text is, which the movie actually tries to disguise for some time. SPOILER ALERT ... It's the Bible. Duh.

New blurb:
Determined to protect an ancient text, post-apocalyptic wanderer, Eli (Denzel Washington), does battle with tyrannical town boss, Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who needs the book for his own nefarious purposes. Carnegie's blind mistress (Jennifer Beals) and her beautiful daughter (Mila Kunis) are pulled into the fray, in this sci-fi adventure directed by the Hughes brothers.

Blurbs Gone Wrong

I am a big fan of Netflix.

My wife harangued me for almost two years to drop the movie channels we were paying for on DirecTV in favor of a Netflix account. I resisted, I demurred. I rationalized that getting movies in the mail would be too much of a hassle. I convinced myself that watching year-old "new releases" on HBO or Stars was worth being able to see the new season of "The Tudors." I think subconsciously I rationalized that dropping $30-40 a month on movie channels somehow gave me more than I could possibly get for $10-15 a month. Whatever the reason, I was wrong to have waited so long, and just so my wife can revel in a rare moment of capitulation, let me say it again: I was wrong, sweetie. Now you can die happy.

When my family wanted to watch actual new movies, I'd hop in the truck and head over to Blockbuster to rent a stack of new releases for $30-40 a pop. Then we would struggle to watch them all within five to seven days. Often, we'd end up skipping one or two (the cinematic equivalent of having eyes bigger than our stomachs), and then I'd rush back at almost midnight on the day the movies were due.

Very stressful. Isn't a leisure activity supposed to be, well, leisurely?

Enter Netflix, which has downright revolutionized the way we watch recorded media in Casa de Louie. It's no wonder the video stores are closing all around town; having something come to you is much easier than going to get it. Laziness is the basic engine of innovation.

Even better is Netflix's library of streamable movies made available to us through our Wii and wireless Internet connection. In fact, we probably watch more movies that way than we do on DVD, which is an inherently flawed medium, let's be honest, and one ill-suited for the "gentle" handling of the U.S. Postal Service. Of course, the on-demand offerings are slim (but growing), so we still rely upon The Little Red Envelop quite a bit.

Lest you think my praise too effusive, let me get to the point of this roundabout introduction: Netflix's descriptions are sometimes incorrect or entirely miss the point of what the movie was about. Often, these blurbs meander on and on about pointless, minor details or gloss over the most important aspects of a film. Sometimes, the blurbs are only kind of wrong, and other times, they are hilariously off-base.

I really wonder who writes these descriptions and if they are required to have actually seen the film. My guess would be that they are written by a third-party or are rewritten from other sources like IMDB. However they are generated, I find this phenomenon to be out of place in what is otherwise a fine service.

As such, I have taken it upon myself to faithfully record the more egregious examples and rewrite them to make more sense, at least as I see it. Don't ask me why I would do something so pointless. It's in my nature, I guess. Anyway, I will be posting these examples sporadically and as I see fit. I have created a label for this purpose and will prefix my examples with "Blurbs Gone Wrong: ..." Feel free to submit your own examples in the comments, but be warned: doing so will make you just as AR as me :)