An Aquarium A Movie and AMore

Here's what we did Saturday.

Wes has been bugging us for ages to take him to the Aquarium. Problem. First, I didn't know if we had an Aquarium in UT for sure, (UT just doesn't seem like a very aquariumy kind of state if you ask me), and if UT had an Aquarium I sure didn't know where the heck it was. If I did think where it might be I would've guessed downtown SLC. (My confusion was ironic cuz I'm an AQUARIUS! Right?).

Turns out there is an Aquarium in UT! and it is in Sandy! Which happens to be very close by where we live. So off to the Aquarium in Sandy, UT, we went.

The fact that I find Zoos and Aquariums surreal at best will not be debated. I just had to let it all go and try NOT to think about the weirdness of pretending that the animals we are looking at are NOT looking at us. And that they are happy about it.

The fact that this particular Aquarium is in the old Mac's Craft's Store building in Sandy did not help me delude myself. Think "The Space Center" underwater. Those who know what I'm referring to probably get that joke. 'Cept it's not a joke. I had to remind myself that Aquarium's are for kids. And well-meaning pimply faced older juveniles; who seem to be running the joint entirely on their own.

Here are some pictures that are so bad that I think that you'll find them enjoyable for that reason alone. I find that if you pretend that the entire Aquarium is submerged underwater the quality of these pictures becomes rather apropos. It's the new "under the sea" picture app on the iphone camera. If there isn't an app like that already, then I call dibs.

 Here we have another example of why it's better that I don't take the "we so excited to be here and dis is the name of the place we are at" picture.

 HIS idea to salute while mounted on a frog. (I am thoroughly infatuated with the use of perspective in this shot.)

 I call this "fish face". Cuz I just thought that up right now.

 I have no idea what the wavy mirrors have to do with the water conservation section of the exhibit, but it was definitely the most interesting part of it all. Who wants to hear, or read to be more precise, yet again, that UT is a desert and receives .5", or something like that, of rainfall a year? I would much rather look at the wavy mirrors. (I think it'd make much more sense, and be a whole lot more fun, if they were trick mirrors. But do you think anyone asked me?).

 The stingray pool is definitely the most exciting part of the entire Aquarium. People might pretend that it's the shark tank, or the educational exhibits, or the gift shop... but that's a pack of lies doled out by a pack of liars. I feel that vehemently about this. Not really. (Unless of course you're in an Aquarium with a LEGIT shark tank. Then it's a solid tie between the stingrays and the sharks. Which are both excellent names for pre-school soccer teams. That's all I'm gonna say about that.)

 This is the Shark Tank. That is a Sea Turtle.

True story: there was a Family of the White Trash Type whose men folk stood in front of the entire span of viewing window for a full 10 minutes taking photos of every cotton picking algae eating creature in that there tank. You'd think they were shooting a documentary for PBS. Or they thought they were. With their phone cameras!! WHO takes serious pictures with a phone camera? sheesh. You'd think they'd never been to the big city before, let alone a Major Aquarium like the one where we were. I had to just stand there, waiting for them to finally move on for my turn at the window and the photo op. Too bad I never got a shot of an actual tiny shark as it came zipping by. You'da thunk all those things if you'da seen it for yourself. Thankfully I was able to describe it so well. It's a gift I tell ya.

The Penguin Encounter was cool. When one of the penguins coughed up a loogie and spit it on the glass right in front of Wes' face I knew the entire outing was worth the sacrifice. Watching the penguins waddle back and forth, everyone at the window holding their collective breath hoping that at least one penguin will actually penguin-dive into the water, uh, not so much.

It was a good thing that I was at the Aquarium with Wes. Kevin became motion sick just walking around the different exhibits. How is that possible? He had to sit outside. He could barely make the drive home. (I don't know how to drive his monster truck, nor did I want to, so yeah, I made him drive.)


I am no film critic, nor do I wish to be. I'd have to watch movies only boys imagine there are deeper meanings to, such as every epidose in a Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and/or Tron series and or remake. (Wes just informed me that Tron is NOT a series. My bad.)

There are other reasons too. My lack of ability to be succinct or understood chief among them.

But I am opinionated and critical.

Back it up Back it up.

AFTER Kevin had his wits about him again, he decided that if I really wanted to see "Jane Eyre" then he was up to it. (Obviously he's never read the book.) So we left Wes at home and drove up to Jordan's Landing to the Disneyland of Movie Theatres.

Before I started writing this post, I thought I'd read some reviews of this latest remake, (this makes #16 I believe.) Wanted to see what other real critical thinkers thought. For a moment I forgot that no one reads this blog, at least no one who'd care about any type of "Jane Eyre" review. Once I came to my senses, I ditched the idea of summarizing the story line and it's deeper meanings. I just thought about them and I will keep those thoughts, basically, to myself.

I will say that on the positive side, Jane Eyre was played brilliantly. She was the perfect mix of plain with the light of beauty veiled in her eyes. Jane has to be a tough character to cast... she has to feel herself to be so ugly that you believe she is, yet have so much goodness and strength deep within that you can't help but be drawn to her and eventually recognize she is beautiful in her own right. Is it because that we as women often identify with these feelings that makes "Jane Eyre" such a beloved classic, and, (considered so by anyone with 1/2 a brain), has endured the test of time? I saw a picture of the actress who played Jane and it is hard to believe that she is the same person. That is good acting. And makeup.

I love how the director focused on the gothic darkness of the book. I think that aspect is often left out. I think that he should have spent more energy on the mysterious woman in the attic... but he didn't.

I feel that the movie was very well cast until it comes to the 2nd most important person in the story, Rochester. The actor who played him was just too good looking, too happy. That doesn't mean he was either really. Unless you know Jane and Rochester as I do, there isn't much chance of me being able to explain what I mean.

I read no reviews that mentioned what I was thought, so maybe I'm wrong. But, pffft, I know I'm right.

I'm officially sick of this post. I leave with you this stunning image of Jane, just look at her dress rumpling in the wind, her cloak splayed open, the agony in her face, the tree with its monstrous arms. Sigh. She's running away after finding out............... guess you'll have to read the book. Or take the easy way out and see the movie. You miss out if that's your choice though.

And that's my opinion.

And this is a cute picture of Wes. Send your cute pictures my way if you'd like to be featured on Mamaface Says.