Plus, let's be honest: my attention span has collapsed, in part from sleep deprivation and in part from constant attention to a baby that might be on the verge of a freak-out. I can barely handle reading Newsweek, let alone a novel.
So...television it is. Which is terribly embarrassing as Kevin and I had agreed to a TV-free world for Peter's first two years; we've since amended it to TV-free once he actually seems to pay attention to the screen.
In a serendipitous turn of events, we're mysteriously getting super-extended cable again. (Actually, it's not so mysterious, but entirely related to the cable meltdown of a few weeks ago.) Which means hours and hours of DVRed movies.
A few hits and misses:
28 and 35 Up
These two entries continue the stories of the cute British kids who (for the most part) grow up to be remarkably normal and boring British adults. I confess to being a fan of Nick, the cute farm-boy-turned-nuclear-physicist; Bruce, the sensitive mathematics teacher; and Tony, who very prophetically said at 14 what his life would be: he'd be a jockey, but, if he weren't successful, he'd be a cabbie.
We all were much cuter 14 years ago.
It's a bit tiresome to watch the archival footage from previous years with each episode, but I suppose it's useful given these documentaries were released seven years apart. In some weird way, it's like attending a high school reunion. (Point of fact: I have never attended a high school reunion, and I doubt I will. But I can imagine.)
Little Children
"Mmm...sexy naked Kate Winslet." - Kevin Ross, movie critic
Kevin's no Pauline Kael (or Roger Ebert, for that matter), but he does hit the nail on the head: much of this movie rests on the shoulders of sexy naked Kate Winslet.
Kate Winslet gets much naked-er in the movie.
Both Kevin and I had read the book a few years ago, while on vacation, and we both agreed that while the movie was nice, the book was much better. In fact, the only thing the movie had going for it was - all together now - sexy naked Kate Winslet.
In fact, the only other difference offered in the movie version of this story (other than, of course, sexy naked Kate Winslet) was the newly-appropriate conversation Kevin and I had regarding which of us were more likely to be a character in the movie: me, as bored housewife and mother (although not nearly as sexy or naked as Kate Winslet), or Kevin, as bored stay-at-home dad with failed career.
The Family Stone
Preface: the ONLY reason we watched this movie is because it didn't demand our attention. The plot was as transparent as a piece of Scotch tape, which is useful when watching a movie during your infant son's witching hour.
What the @*$?
Seriously.
In what sicko, perverted family would such wife-swapping be okay, let alone joyfully celebrated? Yick, yock, yuck.
And while love at first sight is a nice plot device, it demands something more than a quick glance and a short conversation for the audience to buy it. Otherwise, it reads a lot more like lust at first sight - which is probably a much more efficacious, if less noble, plot device.
In fact, the only interesting part of this movie was Kevin's outraged response, which included many "what the @*$@?" and "are we supposed to believe this *$(#*@?"
In conclusion, "it sucked." - Kevin Ross, movie critic.
VolverThese two entries continue the stories of the cute British kids who (for the most part) grow up to be remarkably normal and boring British adults. I confess to being a fan of Nick, the cute farm-boy-turned-nuclear-physicist; Bruce, the sensitive mathematics teacher; and Tony, who very prophetically said at 14 what his life would be: he'd be a jockey, but, if he weren't successful, he'd be a cabbie.
We all were much cuter 14 years ago.It's a bit tiresome to watch the archival footage from previous years with each episode, but I suppose it's useful given these documentaries were released seven years apart. In some weird way, it's like attending a high school reunion. (Point of fact: I have never attended a high school reunion, and I doubt I will. But I can imagine.)
Little Children
"Mmm...sexy naked Kate Winslet." - Kevin Ross, movie critic
Kevin's no Pauline Kael (or Roger Ebert, for that matter), but he does hit the nail on the head: much of this movie rests on the shoulders of sexy naked Kate Winslet.
Kate Winslet gets much naked-er in the movie.Both Kevin and I had read the book a few years ago, while on vacation, and we both agreed that while the movie was nice, the book was much better. In fact, the only thing the movie had going for it was - all together now - sexy naked Kate Winslet.
In fact, the only other difference offered in the movie version of this story (other than, of course, sexy naked Kate Winslet) was the newly-appropriate conversation Kevin and I had regarding which of us were more likely to be a character in the movie: me, as bored housewife and mother (although not nearly as sexy or naked as Kate Winslet), or Kevin, as bored stay-at-home dad with failed career.
The Family Stone
Preface: the ONLY reason we watched this movie is because it didn't demand our attention. The plot was as transparent as a piece of Scotch tape, which is useful when watching a movie during your infant son's witching hour.
What the @*$?
Seriously.
In what sicko, perverted family would such wife-swapping be okay, let alone joyfully celebrated? Yick, yock, yuck.
And while love at first sight is a nice plot device, it demands something more than a quick glance and a short conversation for the audience to buy it. Otherwise, it reads a lot more like lust at first sight - which is probably a much more efficacious, if less noble, plot device.
In fact, the only interesting part of this movie was Kevin's outraged response, which included many "what the @*$@?" and "are we supposed to believe this *$(#*@?"
In conclusion, "it sucked." - Kevin Ross, movie critic.
Who knows? We had to return it, since we realized that watching anything with subtitles would be out of the question for the next few months.
No comments:
Post a Comment