Driving to the movies, we passed a fast food restaurant that had put up a sign: "Life is short/Eat Now." I don't see how that follows, other than that anxiety might bring on a bout of binge eating. Or binge eating might result in a short life.
The woman in front of us in line at the theater bought a ticket to "Something's Gotta Give," which caused the ticket seller to announce into the loudspeaker mike that someone would need to run that movie. The ticket seller explained that they don't run the movie unless someone buys a ticket. Isn't SGG supposed to be a hit? I guess not around here.
We dropped into "Cold Mountain" for a couple minutes, enough to gather that it was badly written. You could tell the movie was going to be excruciatingly slow by the time it took for various minor characters to assert that Nicole Kidman was pretty. Get on with it!
The movie we'd come to see, though, was "House of Sand and Fog," which had a good script, the kind of story that works so well in a movie, where some little thing happens in the beginning, then one thing leads to another, with all sorts of extravagant consequences. At some point you have to just let go of the thought "Jennifer Connelly should have opened her mail" and follow the characters.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
This is the movie review of yours that led me, ever after, to pay attention to how you review movies.
To say that doesn't mean that I agree with your reviews (or even your POV, then or now, re: movies). To say that does mean, however, that I mean what I say with regard to paying attention to how you review movies, and not just that.
Thanks for the comment.
This was the first movie I saw in the theater after starting the blog, and I was discovering my way of blogging about movies, which wasn't really to "review" them.
I think, looking back, that it would have been more precise of me to specifically use "view" in place of at least one "review" use and "re-view" in place of at least two. But I didn't, and there's nothing, or at least not much, I can do in retrospect other than acknowledge that which I just did acknowledge.
Also, when I first started reading your blog back in 2004, it was the very "discovering nature" of yours that attracted me and drew in me to begin with. That was the thing, from the start. That openness + focus, curiosity + discernment. I do understand more than 8-1/2 years later, things have changed, and exponentially so, both blog- and blogospheric-wise. So it's gone, I know. I know that. But is it so bad to remember, even miss, a scant couple-so/few years ago with a bit of fondness?
I don't agree that it's gone.
Jesus, Ann. You're picking up on a conversation-comment of mine from six months ago? I do see how this first reaction of mine to that is a deflection (I mean, why not just continue the conversation, another part of me says--and, really, why not). Still, that scant six months seems so far away. But then, so much has changed.
Also, what the hell attracted your attention to this comment, after all this time? As always: fascinating. A key thing.
... the kind of story that works so well in a movie, where some little thing happens in the beginning, then one thing leads to another, with all sorts of extravagant consequences.
Isn't that how every single episode of The Simpsons unfolds?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा