 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.169.212.28
First I forgot to point out the similitude of the 9/ 11 real pictures ( people running away )
to the one you can see in the film. The Church falling down may be the " twin towers " and
that maybe the nearest allusion to it ( 9/11) what Hollywood brought us to this tragic day.Second, In the twenty minutes scene who broke the pace of this film, why had Tom Cruise to kill Tim Robbins?
He could have just left him.
That is engraved in the logic of Mr . Spielberg, " ready to kill for your familly " yes, but only if absolutely necessary.
And that was not the case. Here.
Follow Ups:
You obviously were not paying attention. The long eyeball thingy could hear sounds. Robbins was making lots of noise. The tripod thingy stopped and Cruise put two and two together that the alien obviously heard Robbins ranting away. Cruis to save his daughter and himself shut Robbins up. So this is NOT a good reason to knoc this film.
However, this film was utterly pointless, devoid of any real emotion, long, boring, lacking any wonder that Spielberg used to muster. Even the effects are uninspired and I agree with Ebert on the stupid tripod things. It's a badly done alien (following the novella or not). Even the ending was lame. Sorry, but aliens this advanced which supposedly have been plotting against us don;t take the time to analyze airborn toxins and viruses? This is almost, though not quite as stupid as the laptop saving the world in Independence Day. Making a film on par with Independence Day is bad enough but at least that film had a bit of fun.It's IMO one of the worst Spielberg films I give it
*1/2 / *****
x
And in a good movie I would not pick on it. In a bad movie then i wonder why Spielberg just didn't make a NEW monster movie. Plenty of directors have what is called creative licence...this movie could have used a total re-vamp for a 2005 audience not a 1940's audience or whenever this originally aired.Of course that is the crux...this thing never should have been made in the first place. There is nothing here to support a motion picture.
Consider the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers...The 1978 Sutherland version as well as the original are masterfyul science fiction monster movies of alien Invaders with the GUTS to have US lose.
There are just so many better monster movies with real creepiness, scares, and more importantly what seems to be REAl jeapardy, loss, and organic fully realized characters.
We get a disaster movie of typical disaster movie quality. And maybe I'm a little harder on this picture because I expect so much more from Steven Spielberg. Spielberg for me walks a thin line in most of his films as it is and I am very generous when it comes to sentiment in film because I don't view sentiment or optimism as a lack of art or a lack of reality.
Spielberg usually places a lot on his characters and emotion...if you buy Cruise here and you care about him and his family this film will ultimately work - I never really did.
Indeed, I can even forgive over sentimental aspects of his movies. Saving Private Ryan's bookends are shmaltz but the rest of the film works. Someone has done a lot of homework on the history of the war and even more-so on the political climate with the entire premise of sending a platoon in for one guy as being entirely politically motivated. I can even forgive the fact that they left out the countries that really did win that war in the first place and it was not America but that's another matter. I don;t expect perfect all-encompassing history's from a two hour film that was basically meant to show that war isn't heroic and a wonderful place to show off to your girlfriend as many other films project.
War of the Worlds was devoid of heart and soul - and pouring on sentiment only works if the audience cares about the characters...If I do then I don't mind the musical crescendo tear-up heart stringing pulling tactics. Spielberg walks that line -- when it works he is the master at it...and when it doesn't man does it fall into the abyss of shallow.
a
... you can't even stand-by your own viewpoint on the rare occasion when you're correct.AuPh
a
For you to call me "stodgy" is the epitome of chutzpah given your history, and conciliatory behavior is so atypical of your modus operandi as to be more alien than any special effect conceived by Steven Spielberg for WoTW. Folks needn't take my word for it, the Video Asylum Search Engine will bear this out. Desist indeed! LOL!The saddest part of this new "consiliatory" backpedalling motion you've devised is that it clearly demonstrates that you can't make up your mind whether to like a film or not without checking which way the critical wind is blowing! No wonder you prefer to rely on the likes of Duncan Sheperd to write "stodgy" opinions, it aleviates the pressure of taking a position and saves you $6 to $10 for a ticket.
I'm very disappointed in you, my friend. For once I thought you were providing an intelligent, informed opinion of a current blockbuster summer release, having attended the screening yourself. Instead I find you buttering up RGA and asking for some syrup to cover your waffle. ;^)
Regards,
AuPh
There is hope.For the record -- and this has been put on record before -- if I decide to see a movie I may clip reviews, but I never read them until afterwards. You alledge otherwise, but you live in a fantasy world, clearly.
clark
Seriously, I couldn't believe that you were doing the waffle dance and using such a lame excuse as "being conciliatory." That just doesn't pass any reasonable credibility test.> > > "For the record -- and this has been put on record before -- if I decide to see a movie I may clip reviews, but I never read them until afterwards. You alledge otherwise, but you live in a fantasy world, clearly." < < <
Saying "if I decide to see a movie" obfuscates the real point to which I was alluding (i.e., the fact that you've apparently posted critical reviews from second or third hand sources of films that you've never experienced first hand.
Let's put this into a historical perspective, shall we?
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?searchtext=duncan+
sheperd&topic=&author=clarkjohnsen&date1=2001-01-01&date2=
sheperd&topic=&author=clarkjohnsen&date1=2001-01-01&date2=
&slowmessage=&forum=filmsHave you seen all of these films in a theater (Die Another Day, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Treasure Planet)?
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=27934&highlight=
duncan+sheperd+clarkjohnsen&r=&session=How about I, Robot? Did you actually see it in it's initial release?
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=14557&highlight=
duncan+sheperd+clarkjohnsen&r=&session=sheperd&topic=&author=
clarkjohnsen&date1=2001-01-01&date2=&slowmessage=&forum=filmsTwo reviews of LOTR, ...but where's your's???
This is just a random cross section, 3 of some 49 recorded second hand reviews that you authored since 2001, using the Film Asylum search engine, cut & pasted from Duncan Sheperd's reviews; many, many more examples can be brought up (further back and other reviewers).
Personally, I don't have a problem with your posting links to second hand opinions if, and I do mean IF, you've actually attended a showing of the film in question because it presumes that you share the same opinion (i.e., first-hand knowledge) as the reviewer. In other words, you should qualify it and express your own views as well so that folks know that you've actually seen the picture.
What I think folks really want to know is what YOU or I think of a specific movie as they're going to be able to gauge their own interest from first hand INFORMED opinions and interaction with folks whose opinions they trust on this discussion board. If it was just a matter of looking up reviews, that would be a no-brainer. One could simply post a link to Rotten Tomatoes for a good cross section of reviews.
Cheers,
AuPhPS: Chickensh*t served at no extra charge by the Colonel of Truth! ;^)
...that he can compose in Word and then post when he's finished? I hate reading drafts.Regarding the message itself, this one sentence indicates its silliness: "Personally, I don't have a problem with your posting links to second hand opinions." Those were all first-hand opinions.
And they were posted for entertainment value, besides the information afforded. Many times I find I see movies late, plus, many reviews are on-line only for a week.
Cease and desist these broadsides.
clark
> > > "Cease and desist these broadsides." < < <It's your broadsides that should be monitored, mon ami. ;^)
> > > "And in a good movie I would not pick on it. In a bad movie then i wonder why Spielberg just didn't make a NEW monster movie. Plenty of directors have what is called creative licence...this movie could have used a total re-vamp for a 2005 audience not a 1940's audience or whenever this originally aired." < < <...I think Clark is refering to the original novel, by H. G. Wells from the 1890's, not the radio broadcast scripted and directed by Orson Welles' Mercury Theater from the 1930's or the George Pal produced 1950's film adaptaion, not that this would matter much in your estimation. Oh, BTW, as I see it, a director's "creative license" shouldn't be the same as the one issued by the British Admiralty to James Bond. :o)
The point Clark is making is a fair one because, even in the course of fine-tuning the story for a modern audience, Spielberg was trying to remain true to the author's intellectual work. War of The Worlds is much more than a "monster movie" just like it's alleghorical content as a written work is more than about space invaders. You can still enjoy popcorn with it, but please, no Cheetos! ;^)
In any adaptaion of a classic novel a seasoned 1st tier director who respects the author's work will want to anchor his vision to the original story in certain areas. If Roger Cormon had produced WoTW I'm sure that it would've hired a hack to totally revamp Well's seminal work for a hip young 2005 audience, or at least it would've been so cheesy that it would "seem" hip to those who don't read books.
Spielberg took some risks here and, IMHO, they paid off. Of course, your mileage will undoubtably vary.
Respectfully,
AuPh
If I read the book I would not need to see the film and if I need to read the book to understand the film then it's a bad film.The problem with people who have READ the book is that they can read into the film polititical or societal satire because in the book it may have been quite profound. When it is NOT there in the film but one remembers the book they "fill-in" the missing gaps. The audience who have not read the book don;t have the gaps to "fill-in" and therefore the film is in isolation and can be more objectively viewed.
It is the same with LOTR - the film without reading the Book is overlong tiresomme one note and not the least bit deep. I can only imagine that the book has some sort of political satire or point other than power corrupts whioch is the only thing the films harped on for 9 hours and thanks I alreayd know that.
Some crtics have been on about terrorism and 9/11 in War of the Worlds...Holy read anything you want into this film Batman because it just is not there. Interestingly idf there was commentary, the lopsidedness of power in the world today the film SHOULD have been set in Iraq with the aliens finally dieing from not understanding different cultures -- that MIGHT have worked.
... back in junior or senior high. I'm kind of surprised that you haven't because you seem to be a well educated fellow.> > > "The problem with people who have READ the book is that they can read into the film polititical or societal satire because in the book it may have been quite profound. When it is NOT there in the film but one remembers the book they "fill-in" the missing gaps. The audience who have not read the book don;t have the gaps to "fill-in" and therefore the film is in isolation and can be more objectively viewed." < < <
It isn't a matter of needing to read the book in order to understand the film, it's a matter of visualization and interpretation of a classic work from a different medium.
> > > "It is the same with LOTR - the film without reading the Book is overlong tiresomme one note and not the least bit deep. I can only imagine that the book has some sort of political satire or point other than power corrupts whioch is the only thing the films harped on for 9 hours and thanks I alreayd know that." < < <
Of course you can read whatever you want into any book or film, but according to Tolkein himself, LoTR wasn't intended as some sort of political satire; sadly too many folks try to read things into fantasy that isn't there. Yes there are strong indications of trust and sacrifice, but that shouldn't necessarily reflect any particular time or place in the real world.
Which brings me back to the subject at hand. Fans of Lord of The Rings and War of The Worlds have ALWAYS been concerned that it wouldn't be done properly; I'm talking about fans of the books. Fans often don't want to see ONE WORD changed from a favorite novel or series of books even when failing to make alterations in transitioning to film drastically impairs the flow of the film. Note: Most of the fans of the literature, however, were delightfully surprised by the outcome, and no one needs to read Tolkein's Ring's Trilogy in order to appreciate these fine films.
Peter Jackson respected the work while making necessary alterations, including the dropping of a well liked minor character, to keep the flow of the story moving. My point being that no one NEEDS to read a book before seeing the movie in order to appreciate the film interpretation; if they do, then the filmmaker has failed in his effort. OTOH, the true test of a classic film is how much of the original author's written word can make it's way into the film and still be true to that original work.
IMHO, Spielberg succeede with WoTW by re-envisioning and embellishing upon H. G. Well's classic tale, which is always a risk, but he somehow managed to do it without compromising the original work. The fact that you apparently dislike both LoTR and WoTW suggests to me that adult fantasy & SF isn't your cup of tea. Nothing wrong with that, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
AuPh
I don´t think so. AND I paid attention. I mean how can you say I did not when I wrote so much about this film. ( In fact I wonder myself why, a complete lost of time...THAT would be a critic...)
No what I underlined was the will of the director to KILL anything coming as a danger to HIS family.
For the detaiils as I describe them or you, ( somewhere in the middle may be the objective truth ) do not matter.
I wrote it before, looking for logic in this film is useless, and it is also not important as in most films.
And yes ID was a real pop corn movie as they says, but at least somewhere between the lines you could have a kind of childish fun.
And to be entertained is all about.
You are indeed correct in the first part of your analysis about Cruise's character and Robbin's. Where the wheels come off your tracks is in regard to: 1) the opinion that this film lacks emotional content, 2) the criticism of the alien tripods and effects as uninspired, and 3) placing it BELOW Independence Day on ANY scale!In my estimation, Independence Day is one of the worst SF films ever produced! No offense, but ID isn't even close to being "fun" unless one has a hard-on for stereotypes, corny dialogue and lame-arse cameos as is found in all of those obnoxious disaster films of the 70's & 80's produced by Irwin Allen, et. al. (Airport, Towering Inferno, Posseidon Adventure, Earthquake, etc.)!
Sorry about the rant, but I absolutely loathe the film Independence Day.
As for WoTW, I'll give it 3.5 stars (***1/2 of *****); I found it to be a good film, bordering on greatness, that still has problems inherent in many of Spielberg's high-powered action & FX movies. He managed to avoid the plotholes and continuity gaffs inherent in many of his fast paced action films and venture into new territory; for that reason WoTW should hold-up if not improve with multiple viewings. There's psychological chills and creepiness aplenty; he achieved this by directing more realistic, underplayed characters whose motivations make sense. Unfortunately, Steven still fell back on some of his trademark cliches to extend suspense in certain key sequences and, in the final analysis, that knocks it down a notch.
AuPh
First I gave Independance day *1/2 / ***** the same star rating. It is a monster movie with good effects cardboard cut-out characters and cheesey one-liner dialogue.I always take this over rehashed monster movies that try and take themselves seriously and end up being a dry bore. When you have idiotic written material or one note material espeicially in sci-fi it needs something, generally comic relief.
The Problem with War of the Worlds is that the Robbins character isn't really believable and seems to be the cameo you are complaining about in ID. Indeed, it's a Shawshank Redemption reunion of sorts which only made me long to be watching that film instead.
The aliens do not have a sense of wonder, nor are they particularly scary in any sort of Ridley Scott, James Cameron "Alien(s)" kind of way. Tom Cruise feels pride in his son rescuing people on the boat. The scene has almost zero weight since the son was not raised by Cruise which it made painfully obvious in the set-up that Cruise is a horrible father and more of a sperm doner dad.
Watching aliens flatten a city has been done to death and better by the Daleks in the TV series Dr.Who. (the longest running science fiction tv series in history). Indeed, Spielberg considered attaining the rights to making that into a film and it would have way more of an opportunity to get a nazi SS theme in there as the Daleks an alien race who want to cleanse the universe of inferior beings. It's a shame because Star Trek and the film matrix ripped so much off from that series it's quite funny.
The explanations provides in WotW are just idiotic and the sophistication of these aliens - well naturally they'd not consider bio warfare or germs viruses and diseases they could contract. Dumbest aliens in the world who only master mathematical concepts as a matter of course.
The biggest problem here is that this is non-existant science fiction. Aliens come, kill us, and lucky for us and presumably the plague they die. So what do we get instead? A father, son and daughter story. That Cruise learns to be a good dad? Well he does risk his life. Man Spielberg went to a lot of trouble for this message -- he could have achieved it in a serious film a lot better. But then it would not make a kabillion dollars.
This movie serves one purpose only -- to see aliens blow up some cities and towns and that is the ONLY purpose it serves.
The Towering Inferno I'll take you up on as first of all disaster films are at least credible. The Towering Infero had a solid idea and a commentary on greed and the American Fascination of phallic symbols. Bigger is better. The execution at that time was reasonably solid.
The funny thing is that depite the age and out of date effects I'd rather re-watch TI than WotW...and it isn't even a horserace.
Where's my copy of Aliens -- that's how Alien monster movies should be made -- or better yet, E.T. a movie that poured on the shmaltz but we let ourselves and Spielberg pour it on. In WotW itseems shallow and forced...and it is one time(and A.I) where I agree with Spielberg Detractors that this over-sentimental garbage.
You apparently missed the visual cues about why the aliens were here and what we were to them; we're no more significant to them as a potential threat than ants. Why would the aliens have more than a cursory sense of wonder about such inferior beings?The Tim Robbin's (Harlan Ogilvy) character was much more than a cameo and works quite well as a creepy kind of deranged fellow who seems to be helping but can't be trusted.
> > > "This movie serves one purpose only -- to see aliens blow up some cities and towns and that is the ONLY purpose it serves." < < <
You're completely off the mark here, blowing up cities and towns wasn't what the alien invasion was about, it was about terra-farming a planet, which you've apparently missed even though it was laid out quite graphically for you.
While I grant you the fact that the germs-killing-off-the-aliens irony seems to be a weak premise by today's standards, much more so than when the novel was first published late in the 19th century (environmental "hot" suits didn't exist back then), it's still serviceable.
This is all my opinion; no offense is intended & YMMV, of course.
Cheers,
AuPh
Well yes I left out living here. Big Deal! They come they kill us they try and terraform and then they die.The deranged paramedic who goes nuts seems like it's from another film to me tacked on to be creepy and to cause a threat to Cruise.
I think I'll go for my copy of V the five part miniseries.
I like Spielberg -- nobody's perfect for me this isone of his worst.
> > > "Second, In the twenty minutes scene who broke the pace of this film, why had Tom Cruise to kill Tim Robbins? He could have just left him. That is engraved in the logic of Mr . Spielberg, " ready to kill for your familly " yes, but only if absolutely necessary. And that was not the case. Here." < < <FYI, that's not what occured at all.
First of all, the "twenty minutes scene who broke the pace of this film" was a similar to a scene in the earlier 1953 WoTW film in that the main characters are trapped for a time and searched out by the aliens, but this goes further by revealing the invader's intent behind invading the Earth and what motivates them to kill humans.
Secondly, Tim Robbins had become a threat to himself and the survival of Tom Cruise's character and that of his daughter, and as a matter of survival (i.e., remaining undiscovered and escaping from the aliens) his motivations are quite sound.
I quite liked Clueless. I hated War of the Worlds.
"First of all, the "twenty minutes scene who broke the pace of this film" was a similar to a scene in the earlier 1953 WoTW film in that the main characters are trapped for a time and searched out by the aliens, but this goes further by revealing the invader's intent behind invading the Earth and what motivates them to kill humans."
It was similar at first with the alien eye tracking them. However when all was said and done it was one of the stupidest parts of a painfully stupid movie. Spielberg couldn't resist using cliches for sheap effect. Hide and seak with an alien probe while the two guys wrestle isn't bad enough, Spielberg had to do the old ridiculus misdirection, Uh oh the alien caught them, TC made noise while hiding behind the mirror and we can see his shoe, what!? no! it's a boot that he happened to find when he was almost caught. Yeah I believe three people could get away from behind a wall mirror while an alien probe is looking right at them without getting caught. All cheap tricks done with camera angles and editing cheats. It was just stupid. Then when you think it couldn't get any more stupid the aliens come out and stroll through the wreckage start naked. One of them even takes a drink of gutter water. Yeah, I buy that. NOT. Could Spielberg have been any more heavy handed in setting up the aliens' demise? You'd think alins with superior technology would build probes with motion dtectors and infra red scanning but no, just near sighted optics."Secondly, Tim Robbins had become a threat to himself and the survival of Tom Cruise's character and that of his daughter, and as a matter of survival (i.e., remaining undiscovered and escaping from the aliens) his motivations are quite sound."
The guy went from rational to bent on self destruction in minutes for no apparent reason.
Spielberg owes me ten bucks.
I will agree that Spielberg used some of his familiar tricks to rev-up suspense in the cellar scene. The hide and seek routine is nothing new in this kind of Spielberg film; it's even reaching the point of being cliche` because it's so predictable. Regrettably, the H&S stunt was employed with the same stylistic flourishes and excesses that he's used in earlier films (i.e., Raptors in the kitchen in Jurassic Park, spider-bots in Minority Report, etc.).OTOH, the terra farming angle was new, and the use of human ash and blood as fertilizer was a very dark, scary idea brought off quite effectively, I thought. I was also impressed and more than a little shocked by the very effective creepiness of the "floaters" in the stream sequence and the "human/rat-catcher" sequence.
On the second point you mentioned I completely differ with your impressions: Tim Robbins character, Harlan Ogilvy, seemed a little off from the start and got progressively creepy. When the aliens investigated the basement and Harlan's warped plans became clear, Tom Cruise's character had to adjust rapidly, from fearful prey to protective father, as Robbin's character seemed the greater threat. After all, Harlan's irrational actions would've eventually lead to everyone's deaths at the hands of the invaders.
Cheers,
AuPh
"I will agree that Spielberg used some of his familiar tricks to rev-up suspense in the cellar scene. The hide and seek routine is nothing new in this kind of Spielberg film; it's even reaching the point of being cliche` because it's so predictable. Regrettably, the H&S stunt was employed with the same stylistic flourishes and excesses that he's used in earlier films (i.e., Raptors in the kitchen in Jurassic Park, spider-bots in Minority Report, etc.)."
So I guess these things are less aggrevating to you than me. nothing wrong with that but I'll get back to that aggrevation later.
'OTOH, the terra farming angle was new, and the use of human ash and blood as fertilizer was a very dark, scary idea brought off quite effectively, I thought."
OK I saw this differently. It seemed to me that the insineration (spelling?) was there for shock value. the blood as fetilizer looked like a selfconflicting twist. I thought it was illogical to destroy a valuable commodity. So you saw a duel purpose. I Think it's a stretch but maybe you saw something I missed there. Anyways I sw it as a bit forced. You can find the same darkness in your garden variety horror film without it feeling forced.
"I was also impressed and more than a little shocked by the very effective creepiness of the "floaters" in the stream sequence and the "human/rat-catcher" sequence.'
didn't it seem way too staged? I thought it did. i like a good shock but soooo many of them in movies are cheats. I have reached a point where cheats just drive me up the wall. I think it is a cheap substitute for well thought out scares with substance. i really admire movies like the Sixth sense where everything was very carefully considered and no cheats were used yet the emotional intent of each scene was preserved.
"On the second point you mentioned I completely differ with your impressions: Tim Robbins character, Harlan Ogilvy, seemed a little off from the start and got progressively creepy. When the aliens investigated the basement and Harlan's warped plans became clear, Tom Cruise's character had to adjust rapidly, from fearful prey to protective father, as Robbin's character seemed the greater threat. After all, Harlan's irrational actions would've eventually lead to everyone's deaths at the hands of the invaders."
I didn't think his plans were warped at all. think about it, without fighting back some how some way the people of earth were doomed without a miracle (lucky earth got one in the end). What bothered me was that he simply turned stupid and was bent on getting caught. The funny thing is, his irrational behavior was putting TC and child in greater danger (nothing a spare boot couldn't fix) but it was his first action, a very rational one, that saved their asses in the first place. that transformation simply felt forced and staged.
Now here's what really burns me up about this movie. you mentioned things being cliche. i think the movie is mostly a string of cliches. All the ridiculous near death escapes, running from falling bridges, swimming from sinking ships, running from fireballs. I'm just sick of this crap. I watched Jaws again over the weekend. What a brilliant movie. It drives me nuts that someone can make movies that good and then end up making things like War of the Worlds. Of course one can find improbablities even in Jaws but nothing of the order of magnitude of todays action movies. NO MORE RUNNING FROM FIRE BALLS PLEASE!!!
So baby, one wrong ( 1953 ) should remain that way ( 2005 ).
So he had to go to Orson / Tin and kill him?
No way.
...from where I sit your efforts clearly emphasize the emphant side of the idiom. ;^)(ahn-FAHN te-REE-bluh) A person who stirs things up in an irresponsible or indiscreet way or has unconventional ideas; also, one whose startlingly unconventional behavior, work, or thought embarrasses or disturbs others. From French, meaning “terrible child.”
> > > "So he had to go to Orson / Tin and kill him?
No way." < < <Something must be lost in translation here (who is "Tin" and if you mean Tim Robbin's character, his name was Harlan Ogilvy).
Yes, ...WAY! Harlan was determined to make his stand right there, even though Ray Ferrier (Cruise) objected to he and his daughter being placed at risk. The Ogilvy character was clearly behaving recklessly and irrationally (i.e., he'd lost it completely), demonstrating no regard for the lives of those he'd offered assistance earlier.
If you still need a clue, I'm sure that others will provide one for you. :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
It get fatiguing.
Not only " enfant terrible " but you " bete noir " it seems....
One has to wonder what sort of souffle our resident Euro-film critic will concoct next; should we start calling you P-diddy (Martha Stewart's ...ahem... pen name)?Note: Souffle is defined as "a savory, open-faced pie made from cheese and eggs."
> > > "It get fatiguing." < < <
Oui, it gets very fatiguing cleaning up the grey poupon spillage; it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. ;^)
Bon apetite,
AuPh
But you really do a good job. Could you please crawl out of the window?
;^)
Yet sometimes I love the sounds of words without any apparent logical background.
BUT this picture show me that sometimes you may have a light tint of humour.
In one word: I like it.
Besides the "occupations never work" comment, Steven showed us this stark social contrast between the have's and have nots when the Boston ex-inlaws stood in the doorway dressed as if nothing ever happened. Mixed with the fact that they didn't seemed to be offering him shelter! Funny for a zillionaire to poke his finger in his own eye.
----------
This space available.
But those haves no longer have that home in Jersey.... Would you have preferred them to invite him in instead of ending with the tearful reunion?I liked the emasculating effect Mirando Otto's husband had on Cruise's character: better relationship with the kids, who kiss and hug him like he's their father, and Otto (who I think's a total knockout and whom I would have preferred to have seen more fetchingly slim) pretty well underscored that effect by being pregnant by this new man. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, Miranda Otto's husband didn't appear at the end. I'm sure that was a conscious omission, though too easy, I think.
I am not quite certain to understand what you mean.
The last phrase explain please.
Maybe he's now making the point that it's never really been "only if absolutely necessary" out there in the real world, that that was just some ideal?
that "blood lust" is real enough.
..but I've seen my own anger rise up behind me, so I believe you.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
