Charlotte's 2nd birthday is this week, and her daddy and I haven't actually bought her any birthday presents yet. We have a babysitter (her aunt& uncle) lined up for Wednesday, so we should be able to wander around a toystore in relative peace. We did do a little looking around over the weekend, but since she was with us, we were focusing on bedding instead of toys.
Charlotte's been sleeping in a toddler bed (her crib with the moveable side removed, and half-rails installed), and is doing great. We already have a full-sized canopy bed for her to sleep in as she gets a little bigger--it belonged to my husband's sister when she was growing up. We got the bed moved into Charlottes room a month ago when we had friends riding out the big blackout, since we had the extra hands. But now, it needs bedding. We have a comforter set on it, but it was picked 5 years ago for the guest room (we have a matching twin set for the twin bed that used to be in there with it), and it doesn't go with Charlotte's room at all.
I didn't realize how hard it would be to find kids bedding that I liked to fit a full sized bed. Bed Bath & Beyond had nothing appropriate--their styles are all adult or dorm-related (we need full, not extra-long twin). Ditto for Target. We tried the Pottery Barn Kids store, and found one set that we really liked. Unfortunately, it's being cleared out and all they have left are twin-sized quilts. I checked their website, and they have even less in stock. They have a couple of other possibilities that come in full-size with colors that won't require us to re-paint and re-drape her room (pale green walls and buttery yellow drapes, to go with her Classic Pooh crib bedding), but the one I liked best cost $200 just for the quilt (it's pretty, and embroidered, and machine-washable, but still...). I tried Penny's website yesterday, and they have a good dozen possibilities--except that they only come in twin size. Don't other little girls have bigger beds?
I guess I always have the option of making something myself, but quilting is not my forte, and I'm afraid she'll be 6 before I get something done. If anyone has any suggestions for places to look, please let us know!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Pride and Prejudice
I watched the new Pride and Predjudice over the weekend, and while I enjoyed it, I don't think it's quite as good as the A&E version.
As far as characters went, the actor playing Lord Bingley made him seem like too much of a simpleton or, well, a dork. I thought from the book that he was just generally a good natured, open kind of guy--at worst a bit naive, but I thought this actor carried that too far. I think the only scene where he looked to have a normal intelligence was when he proposed to Jane.
I definitely liked the Elizabeth Bennet from the A&E version better as well--she was beautiful without looking like a Hollywood toothpick, and made me connect better with her. That's probably because I myself will never be called a toothpick, and it's nice to see folks in the over-110 pound category onscreen :)
I'm not sure which Mr. Darcy did a better job--I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Colin Firth's rendition (mmmm...Colin Firth), but Matthew Macfayden also has the right combination of good looks and brooding eyes.
The scenery was beautiful in the newer version, and they had fun with interesting camera angles, but at some points I think it actually distracted you from the story. Also, in order to cut the story down to fit in a 2-hour movie, they breezed right through some plot points, which made parts of it feel rather rushed.
If I hadn't read the book and/or owned the A&E version already, I probably would have enjoyed it a bit more. But it's hard to really judge a movie on its own merits when you have other versions to compare it to. I think overall it was a good, romantic movie. Despite the now-historical setting of the plot, the story line easily relates to folks today (well, maybe not all of the husband-catching, but if you relate it to dating, then yes). It's also very family-friendly with only a very few innuendos (the scene where Mr. Collins accidentally blurts out "intercourse" while preaching, the scandal caused by the youngest sister, which isn't explained in detail). If you're a romance fan, it's definitely worth renting.
As far as characters went, the actor playing Lord Bingley made him seem like too much of a simpleton or, well, a dork. I thought from the book that he was just generally a good natured, open kind of guy--at worst a bit naive, but I thought this actor carried that too far. I think the only scene where he looked to have a normal intelligence was when he proposed to Jane.
I definitely liked the Elizabeth Bennet from the A&E version better as well--she was beautiful without looking like a Hollywood toothpick, and made me connect better with her. That's probably because I myself will never be called a toothpick, and it's nice to see folks in the over-110 pound category onscreen :)
I'm not sure which Mr. Darcy did a better job--I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Colin Firth's rendition (mmmm...Colin Firth), but Matthew Macfayden also has the right combination of good looks and brooding eyes.
The scenery was beautiful in the newer version, and they had fun with interesting camera angles, but at some points I think it actually distracted you from the story. Also, in order to cut the story down to fit in a 2-hour movie, they breezed right through some plot points, which made parts of it feel rather rushed.
If I hadn't read the book and/or owned the A&E version already, I probably would have enjoyed it a bit more. But it's hard to really judge a movie on its own merits when you have other versions to compare it to. I think overall it was a good, romantic movie. Despite the now-historical setting of the plot, the story line easily relates to folks today (well, maybe not all of the husband-catching, but if you relate it to dating, then yes). It's also very family-friendly with only a very few innuendos (the scene where Mr. Collins accidentally blurts out "intercourse" while preaching, the scandal caused by the youngest sister, which isn't explained in detail). If you're a romance fan, it's definitely worth renting.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Hall Pass
Apparently the theme of August is dirty diapers. After her exploding pants routine a couple of weekends ago, she's now back to having the runs a bit. I'm sure that's just what you wanted to hear. She had some trouble (as in, quite a few rather watery dirty diapers) Tuesday night. Wednesday, she had like 4 that daycare called "loose". Wednesday night she was fine however. Yesterday, she had 3 more, 2 of which were classified "loose", and we were told that she'd have to stay home today unless she got a doctor's note. We heard this news at 3:30, when I was actually packing to leave for the day, so I gave her pediatrician a call and got a 4:20 appointment (which I could almost make).
I rushed to daycare, grabbed my happy, smiling, energetic daughter, and headed for the ped's new office. This doctor is great, but when we started seeing her she had an office about 10 minutes from our house. She has since started her own practice in the middle-of-nowhere-suburbia (that part of town where they plant corn on one side of the highway and new houses on the other, and the new houses take less time to grow). Since it was rush hour, and apparently many thousands of people work here and live there, I hit some traffic on the way. I actually got there by 4:30, which isn't really too bad I guess.
Charlotte was weighed (24lbs, fully dressed--seems high to me) and examined. She dutifully soiled a diaper during the examination, so the pediatrician got a first-hand look at the "looseness", which really wasn't bad--not watery at all, more like a newborn's cottage-cheese (hey, if you're not interested in the consistency of dirty diapers, then you shouldn't have read this far). She said that Charlotte was not contagious and looked to be on her way to recovery. She wrote us our "hall pass" for daycare, and instructed us to give no juice, and more bananas and fibrous things. She also gave us a couple of samples of diaper cream for her diaper rash (we have more at home, but I had none in my purse at the time--not something I generally carry to work).
So, much to the joy of her diaper-changers, Charlotte is happily playing at daycare today.
I rushed to daycare, grabbed my happy, smiling, energetic daughter, and headed for the ped's new office. This doctor is great, but when we started seeing her she had an office about 10 minutes from our house. She has since started her own practice in the middle-of-nowhere-suburbia (that part of town where they plant corn on one side of the highway and new houses on the other, and the new houses take less time to grow). Since it was rush hour, and apparently many thousands of people work here and live there, I hit some traffic on the way. I actually got there by 4:30, which isn't really too bad I guess.
Charlotte was weighed (24lbs, fully dressed--seems high to me) and examined. She dutifully soiled a diaper during the examination, so the pediatrician got a first-hand look at the "looseness", which really wasn't bad--not watery at all, more like a newborn's cottage-cheese (hey, if you're not interested in the consistency of dirty diapers, then you shouldn't have read this far). She said that Charlotte was not contagious and looked to be on her way to recovery. She wrote us our "hall pass" for daycare, and instructed us to give no juice, and more bananas and fibrous things. She also gave us a couple of samples of diaper cream for her diaper rash (we have more at home, but I had none in my purse at the time--not something I generally carry to work).
So, much to the joy of her diaper-changers, Charlotte is happily playing at daycare today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)