Couldn't make up my mind whether to post this in my playwriting forum or here, since it sort-of covers both blogs. Let me preface my remarks before sharing my views on the movie version of "Les Miserables" that I saw the live version of the play, in addition to watching all the PBS specials over and over again. Love it that much.
There was some reservation on my part upon learning that there was going to be a film version of the popular musical play, which has played all over the world to rave reviews. Knowing that music and singing was the main focus, I naturally assumed that professional singers or at the very least actors with voices that could carry a tune, would be used. Unfortunately not. Instead, and it boggles the mind why the producer/director/whoever went in this direction, unknown actors were chosen for the most part. This in itself wouldn't be detrimental if they could carry a song.
For me, Anne Hathaway had the physical gaunt appearance of Fantine and although I've heard her sing and she can carry a tune, in the movie her voice doesn't make the grade. Even more surprising is that she was nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Supporting Actress category. A big mystery is why Russell Crowe ended up in the movie at all since his presence as Jalvert lent nothing to the role. Perhaps he should limit his vocal abilities to his rock band. The role of Cosette played by Amanda Siefried had the effect, to coin an old phrase, like squeaking chalk on a blackboard. Actually, gritted my teeth at some points. The only performer that was acceptable in my view was Hugh Jackman, nominated for an Oscar in Best Actor category, who seemed to be holding back on his vocals until the mid point of the film. He is a stage and Broadway performer and his experience in this area is obvious in the role of Jean Valjean. Also noted is that Colm Wilkinson, who was in the London and New York production of the play in the role of Jean Valjean, had a cameo role as the Bishop Myriel.
Overall, the movie didn't get started for me until the barricade scene. Until that point, it seemed to drag and plod along and is too long. Loved the chorus and this made the movie somewhat enjoyable as did the visuals. The movie version doesn't even begin to match the stage version and therein lies the problem. Some stories are best left as a play.
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Shaken - not stirred - 50 years of 007
Just thinking how to go about celebrating this day. In case you weren't aware of it and count me in among those who aren't, October 5, 2012, will be Global James Bond Day. According to a promotional blurb, producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, who added their two-cents-worth, "We are absolutely thrilled to be celebrating James Bond's golden addniversary on film with this special day of events for Bond fans around the world." Especially since another new Bond film is about to be released.
The word, "golden" infers 50 years so one assumes it's a means in which to mark fifty years of Bond films. Personally and in my view, Sean Connery exemplified "the" James Bond. Among my favorite is "You Only Live Twice", where James must find and stop some baaaad dudes from a skyjacking in order to prevent a nuclear war. Also on high on my like list is "Dr. No" where James has to stop SPECTRE from stopping rocket launches. The worst Bond portrayer in my view, was George Lazenby, who merely went through the motions in the film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Just didn't have the necessary Bond qualities. You know - charm, finesse, hero qualities and cocktail mixing know-how. Sorry but Daniel Craig doesn't do it for me, either. Just doesn't have that Bond charm. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan did fit the bill but Sean still was the best.
The planned events to celebrate the golden anniversary includes a global online and live charity auction event organized by Christie's in London; a global survey in find out favorite Bond films, country-by-country; a Music of Bond Night in Los Angeles. Interesting to note that there are no special new martinis created in which to honor the man.
As Bond aficienodos know, 007 liked his martins, shaken - not stirred. However, recently and for whatever reason, Bond was made to gave up his martini in favor of imbibing in...well...beer. This was a very shocking move - at least for me. James Bond drinking a beer? What next? Maybe out of a bottle no less? Not that there's anything wrong with beer. Love a cold beer on a hot summer's day and enjoy it mixed with an un-cola but somehow and in my eyes, James Bond's personna does not go with beer.
SEDUCTIVE SPY
Make me a drink, James. You know - something cold that willcool down my hot mouth and slide down my throat
007
Got just the thing
SEDUCTIVE SPY
I heard that you're very adept in the liquid refreshment area, among other places
007
Watch me. First I take a bottle opener. Then I slip it under the bottle cap slowly, very slowly, pry the cap off until it gives in. Then I pour the contents into a large glass slowly and carefully and - voila!
SEDUCTIVE SPY
(putting on her clothes and heding for the door)
Sorry James but beer doesn't do it for me. Another time - another place... 'Boris - dahlink...'
But I digress.
Among the celebrations is an auction of Bond-related items to be auctioned off by Christie's on line until October 5 to benefit charities. Here is the coordinates for people who are interested in bidding on a momento: http://www.christies.com/sales/50-years-of-james-bond-september-2012/sale-info.aspx
Here is a clip from another of my favorites, "The Spy Who Loved Me" with Roger Moore as Bond. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgh-SAuT7hs
For those so inclined, here is the recipe for a James Bond Martini as per www.drinksmixer.com:
3 oz. gin
1 oz. vodka
1/2 oz. white wine
Pour gin, vodka and wine into a cocktail shaker half-filled with crracked ice. Shake well (not stirred obviously to get the real Bond feel.) and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a twist of lemon and serve.
How do you plan to celebrate?
The word, "golden" infers 50 years so one assumes it's a means in which to mark fifty years of Bond films. Personally and in my view, Sean Connery exemplified "the" James Bond. Among my favorite is "You Only Live Twice", where James must find and stop some baaaad dudes from a skyjacking in order to prevent a nuclear war. Also on high on my like list is "Dr. No" where James has to stop SPECTRE from stopping rocket launches. The worst Bond portrayer in my view, was George Lazenby, who merely went through the motions in the film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Just didn't have the necessary Bond qualities. You know - charm, finesse, hero qualities and cocktail mixing know-how. Sorry but Daniel Craig doesn't do it for me, either. Just doesn't have that Bond charm. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan did fit the bill but Sean still was the best.
The planned events to celebrate the golden anniversary includes a global online and live charity auction event organized by Christie's in London; a global survey in find out favorite Bond films, country-by-country; a Music of Bond Night in Los Angeles. Interesting to note that there are no special new martinis created in which to honor the man.
As Bond aficienodos know, 007 liked his martins, shaken - not stirred. However, recently and for whatever reason, Bond was made to gave up his martini in favor of imbibing in...well...beer. This was a very shocking move - at least for me. James Bond drinking a beer? What next? Maybe out of a bottle no less? Not that there's anything wrong with beer. Love a cold beer on a hot summer's day and enjoy it mixed with an un-cola but somehow and in my eyes, James Bond's personna does not go with beer.
SEDUCTIVE SPY
Make me a drink, James. You know - something cold that willcool down my hot mouth and slide down my throat
007
Got just the thing
SEDUCTIVE SPY
I heard that you're very adept in the liquid refreshment area, among other places
007
Watch me. First I take a bottle opener. Then I slip it under the bottle cap slowly, very slowly, pry the cap off until it gives in. Then I pour the contents into a large glass slowly and carefully and - voila!
SEDUCTIVE SPY
(putting on her clothes and heding for the door)
Sorry James but beer doesn't do it for me. Another time - another place... 'Boris - dahlink...'
But I digress.
Among the celebrations is an auction of Bond-related items to be auctioned off by Christie's on line until October 5 to benefit charities. Here is the coordinates for people who are interested in bidding on a momento: http://www.christies.com/sales/50-years-of-james-bond-september-2012/sale-info.aspx
Here is a clip from another of my favorites, "The Spy Who Loved Me" with Roger Moore as Bond. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgh-SAuT7hs
For those so inclined, here is the recipe for a James Bond Martini as per www.drinksmixer.com:
3 oz. gin
1 oz. vodka
1/2 oz. white wine
Pour gin, vodka and wine into a cocktail shaker half-filled with crracked ice. Shake well (not stirred obviously to get the real Bond feel.) and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a twist of lemon and serve.
How do you plan to celebrate?
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Adjustments needed for "The Adjustment Bureau"
Let me first admit that I'm in no way a film critique but I am a paying movie goer. This being written, caught the new Matt Damon offering, "The Adjustment Bureau" based on trailers of the film. In retrospect, sometimes it's better to remember the movie previews and skip seeing the film itself, at least until it comes out on DVD. This is one of those situations. It's not that I don't care for Matt as an actor because he's always done justice to other roles in which he acted.
The premise of the film is that our lives are pre-ordained and we can't or shouldn't change them but sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, and if and when we do try, there is a price to be paid. Got that?
As an up and coming young politician, the film opens with David Norris (Damon) seeking a congressional seat but on election night, a report surfaces concerning a brawl he has at a college reunion causing his rating to fall among his constituents. While practicing his concession speech, he encounters Elise, played by Emily Blunt, a ballerina hiding from security having crashed a wedding.
Security? For crashing a wedding? Say what? Why they chose Blunt for the role is a mystery from my perspective. She was...there. Period.
They meet and sense something familiar. After a much too long discussion about where and why they know each other that seemed to go nowhere, he suddenly feels inspired to change his concession speech into a confession in front of his supporters, which in turn things around positively and he prepares for another try. He meets her again while travelling on a bus to his new job at a venture capital firm, she gives him her phone number and he promoses to call. This whole scene seemed agonizingly long as did a large portion of the movie.
Blah...blah...blah...
Arriving at his place of work, he catches sight of strange-looking men in suits wearing hats. The suits looked normal to me but the hats - that's something else. What the symbolism behind wearing hats is a mystery. Perhaps there were film investors who were hat company owners or maybe I missed the explanation. Have to admit that I dozed off for a few minutes. In any case, the good/bad-ish-at-times guys kidnap Damon. He is informed by the head-hat-person, Mr. Richardson, that they are "Adjusters" and that he wasn't supposed to have met Elise the second time on the bus. Where these adjusters come from - we presume heaven or some ethereal place but it's not clear - walk the earth among humans to ensure things go according to "The Plan." This 'plan', laid out by their Chairman, is kept in a notebook and it's their responsibility to keep balance in the world. A close-up of The Plan shows lots of lines and squiggles and directional arrows on maps.
It's a very convoluted film with warnings by the hat people about dire consequences if David contacts Elise again since it will ruin her chances into devleloping into a world-famous ballerina and his political career will be over. He is given the choice and to drag out the film even more, he walks away from Elise who eventually ends up engaged to someone else, but after seeing headlines of her impending nuptials in a newspaper, Norris goes after her. And so on, and so on...
Let me state for the record that I really enjoy these type of films, which present people with moral choices that could affect the future. This film, however, didn't do it for me. Somehow the hat-people seemed almost comical, which definitely was not intentional in spite of their austere demeanor. It also didn't help that the chase scenes featured the couple on the run entering doors that lead to different geographical locations to flee their pursuers. At one point and upon entering a door, the couple found themselves in the middle of an empty stadium. What was the symbolism? Empty stadium equals empty lives, equals no hotdogs or peanuts?
BTW - the couple are informed at the end of the movie that the people-who-wear-hats look like all of us only wearing hats are among us. This includes cops, construction workers...you get the picture. Now we know why the world is the way it is.
As I mentioned at the beginning - wait for the DVD.
Rating: 2 hats out of 5
The premise of the film is that our lives are pre-ordained and we can't or shouldn't change them but sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, and if and when we do try, there is a price to be paid. Got that?
As an up and coming young politician, the film opens with David Norris (Damon) seeking a congressional seat but on election night, a report surfaces concerning a brawl he has at a college reunion causing his rating to fall among his constituents. While practicing his concession speech, he encounters Elise, played by Emily Blunt, a ballerina hiding from security having crashed a wedding.
Security? For crashing a wedding? Say what? Why they chose Blunt for the role is a mystery from my perspective. She was...there. Period.
They meet and sense something familiar. After a much too long discussion about where and why they know each other that seemed to go nowhere, he suddenly feels inspired to change his concession speech into a confession in front of his supporters, which in turn things around positively and he prepares for another try. He meets her again while travelling on a bus to his new job at a venture capital firm, she gives him her phone number and he promoses to call. This whole scene seemed agonizingly long as did a large portion of the movie.
Blah...blah...blah...
Arriving at his place of work, he catches sight of strange-looking men in suits wearing hats. The suits looked normal to me but the hats - that's something else. What the symbolism behind wearing hats is a mystery. Perhaps there were film investors who were hat company owners or maybe I missed the explanation. Have to admit that I dozed off for a few minutes. In any case, the good/bad-ish-at-times guys kidnap Damon. He is informed by the head-hat-person, Mr. Richardson, that they are "Adjusters" and that he wasn't supposed to have met Elise the second time on the bus. Where these adjusters come from - we presume heaven or some ethereal place but it's not clear - walk the earth among humans to ensure things go according to "The Plan." This 'plan', laid out by their Chairman, is kept in a notebook and it's their responsibility to keep balance in the world. A close-up of The Plan shows lots of lines and squiggles and directional arrows on maps.
It's a very convoluted film with warnings by the hat people about dire consequences if David contacts Elise again since it will ruin her chances into devleloping into a world-famous ballerina and his political career will be over. He is given the choice and to drag out the film even more, he walks away from Elise who eventually ends up engaged to someone else, but after seeing headlines of her impending nuptials in a newspaper, Norris goes after her. And so on, and so on...
Let me state for the record that I really enjoy these type of films, which present people with moral choices that could affect the future. This film, however, didn't do it for me. Somehow the hat-people seemed almost comical, which definitely was not intentional in spite of their austere demeanor. It also didn't help that the chase scenes featured the couple on the run entering doors that lead to different geographical locations to flee their pursuers. At one point and upon entering a door, the couple found themselves in the middle of an empty stadium. What was the symbolism? Empty stadium equals empty lives, equals no hotdogs or peanuts?
BTW - the couple are informed at the end of the movie that the people-who-wear-hats look like all of us only wearing hats are among us. This includes cops, construction workers...you get the picture. Now we know why the world is the way it is.
As I mentioned at the beginning - wait for the DVD.
Rating: 2 hats out of 5
Monday, January 31, 2011
Turn off your cell phones, people!
Short rant today about people and where and when they use their cell phones.
Went to see "The King's Speech" this weekend and it was a great film but that's not the issue here. As anyone who has seen the film will attest, it's an intense story line requiring attention.
It's always amazing, to me at least, how people are attached to their cell phones. I'm surprised that users haven't been afflicted by some type of physical condition as a result of walking with their head down glued to the phone screen. For me, the "icing on the cake" was when using a public washroom, the person in the cubicle next to mine was carrying on a conversation, making plans for the evening. I mean - for heaven's sake - what happened to peeing in private! But I digress.
At the half-way point in the movie, the sound of a ringing phone suddenly reverberated throughout the theatre. Since it was an electronic ring and definitely not in the context of the time period being the 1930's, a bright electronic light emitted from one of the seats drew attention to a cell phone user. The ringing went on for at least 15-20 seconds followed by loud boos and yells to "turn it off!" - and the theatre turned dark. Not five minutes later, the ring of the cell phone was heard again followed by even louder yells from movie watchers, but this time the cell phone user actually had a conversation with...whoever.
Manners people - manners - and common courtesy! You're in a movie theatre and not at Starbucks!
Surely, there has to be some type of cell phone etiquette or rules by movie-plexes and/or repercussions for people who can't live without their cell phones for a mere two hours. Perhaps movie theatres and/or chains should actually fine the offenders to discourage this type of behavior. To their credit most theatres flash a message on the screen prior to the film asking people to turn them off and for the most part, people do obey. Turn off your cell phone, people and guess what! Perhaps you will even enjoy the movie!
Went to see "The King's Speech" this weekend and it was a great film but that's not the issue here. As anyone who has seen the film will attest, it's an intense story line requiring attention.
It's always amazing, to me at least, how people are attached to their cell phones. I'm surprised that users haven't been afflicted by some type of physical condition as a result of walking with their head down glued to the phone screen. For me, the "icing on the cake" was when using a public washroom, the person in the cubicle next to mine was carrying on a conversation, making plans for the evening. I mean - for heaven's sake - what happened to peeing in private! But I digress.
At the half-way point in the movie, the sound of a ringing phone suddenly reverberated throughout the theatre. Since it was an electronic ring and definitely not in the context of the time period being the 1930's, a bright electronic light emitted from one of the seats drew attention to a cell phone user. The ringing went on for at least 15-20 seconds followed by loud boos and yells to "turn it off!" - and the theatre turned dark. Not five minutes later, the ring of the cell phone was heard again followed by even louder yells from movie watchers, but this time the cell phone user actually had a conversation with...whoever.
Manners people - manners - and common courtesy! You're in a movie theatre and not at Starbucks!
Surely, there has to be some type of cell phone etiquette or rules by movie-plexes and/or repercussions for people who can't live without their cell phones for a mere two hours. Perhaps movie theatres and/or chains should actually fine the offenders to discourage this type of behavior. To their credit most theatres flash a message on the screen prior to the film asking people to turn them off and for the most part, people do obey. Turn off your cell phone, people and guess what! Perhaps you will even enjoy the movie!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Ricky Gervais - funny or profane? Last words
This year's Golden Globe awards are a memory already but the sting lingers on. It appears that the Globes host, Ricky Gervais, is still experiencing the re-bound effects of what many believe to be over-the-top insulting remarks about the various celebs/nominees.
Let us remember that this isn't the Oscars or any of the staid award shows to follow. It's the Golden Globes where the atmosphere is relaxed and anything goes. One presumes that Gervais was hired (again)because of his known ability to quick-quip and powers of observations. This he does well - IMHO - and then some. What is surprising (to me) is the extent to which his commentaries hit home to the celebs and the extent to which they are insulted.
The man is a comic, peeplz! Perhaps - just perhaps - his remarks hit a little too close to the bone? What did they expect him to do? Read staid material from a cue card, praising everyone? He was there to entertain and he fulfilled this aspect - and then some, IMHO.
Too bad because most likely he won't get re-invited back to host the Globes again (note: recent word has it that he has been asked to host next year's Globes but hasn't decided), however, there are other award shows coming up in which he would be great and add something exciting to the mix - like the Academy Awards. Yawn...
To quote Will Rogers: "Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."
Let us remember that this isn't the Oscars or any of the staid award shows to follow. It's the Golden Globes where the atmosphere is relaxed and anything goes. One presumes that Gervais was hired (again)because of his known ability to quick-quip and powers of observations. This he does well - IMHO - and then some. What is surprising (to me) is the extent to which his commentaries hit home to the celebs and the extent to which they are insulted.
The man is a comic, peeplz! Perhaps - just perhaps - his remarks hit a little too close to the bone? What did they expect him to do? Read staid material from a cue card, praising everyone? He was there to entertain and he fulfilled this aspect - and then some, IMHO.
Too bad because most likely he won't get re-invited back to host the Globes again (note: recent word has it that he has been asked to host next year's Globes but hasn't decided), however, there are other award shows coming up in which he would be great and add something exciting to the mix - like the Academy Awards. Yawn...
To quote Will Rogers: "Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."
Monday, January 17, 2011
Golden Globes - Hollywood puts on its best smile
Did you watch the Golden Globe Awards last night? What did you think of Ricky Gervais's acidic/acerbic observations of various Hollywood celebs? Actually, I found him very entertaining although it was visually obvious during camera pans that not everyone agreed.
Watched it for the first hour while waiting for the next installment of Masterpiece Theatre's, "Downton Abbey" (love this series!) and returned for the last half-hour. Seems I didn't miss that much since Ricky's presence was limited in the second half of the show. Hmmmm...wonder why... As usual, the 'thank-you's' by the winners went on and on to the point where you (me) want to scream, "shut-up, already!" Really, your average person really doesn't know or care who was responsible for elevating the star to the winner's circle or the people involved in making the film/TV series.
One of the more interesting - at least for me - aspects of watching any award show is the reaction of those nominated who didn't win. There is the fixed smile and the applause but one has to admire their brave personna. Inside they could be thinking: "that stupid blah-blah - she/he didn't deserve the award. I should'a won! Wait 'til I speak to my agent!" Just speculating.
Another favorite part of all award shows is the fashions and general "look." Local plastic surgeons must be working day and night before all award shows judging by the lack of aging on the s*t*a*r*s. Not a frown line, skin creases or bags under the eyes could be seen, anywhere. Mind you, at least big lips were in short supply, thank goodness. Personally, I love the dresses and am aghast at how anyone can walk in those beautiful-looking but most likely painful to wear, shoes. All part of the "the look" one assumes so that we viewers will sigh and wish that we were among the glitterai.
The Golden Globes is the kick-off for the plethora of award shows that will follow. Somehow, they don't seem as relevant as they once did. Still, they're the only means in which to get a glimpse of our favorite celebs playing the role of celebs. And it's about the fashions...
Watched it for the first hour while waiting for the next installment of Masterpiece Theatre's, "Downton Abbey" (love this series!) and returned for the last half-hour. Seems I didn't miss that much since Ricky's presence was limited in the second half of the show. Hmmmm...wonder why... As usual, the 'thank-you's' by the winners went on and on to the point where you (me) want to scream, "shut-up, already!" Really, your average person really doesn't know or care who was responsible for elevating the star to the winner's circle or the people involved in making the film/TV series.
One of the more interesting - at least for me - aspects of watching any award show is the reaction of those nominated who didn't win. There is the fixed smile and the applause but one has to admire their brave personna. Inside they could be thinking: "that stupid blah-blah - she/he didn't deserve the award. I should'a won! Wait 'til I speak to my agent!" Just speculating.
Another favorite part of all award shows is the fashions and general "look." Local plastic surgeons must be working day and night before all award shows judging by the lack of aging on the s*t*a*r*s. Not a frown line, skin creases or bags under the eyes could be seen, anywhere. Mind you, at least big lips were in short supply, thank goodness. Personally, I love the dresses and am aghast at how anyone can walk in those beautiful-looking but most likely painful to wear, shoes. All part of the "the look" one assumes so that we viewers will sigh and wish that we were among the glitterai.
The Golden Globes is the kick-off for the plethora of award shows that will follow. Somehow, they don't seem as relevant as they once did. Still, they're the only means in which to get a glimpse of our favorite celebs playing the role of celebs. And it's about the fashions...
Saturday, December 26, 2009
A night out at the movie - if you can find it
So yesterday we went to our local gazillion-plex to see George Clooney's latest film, "Up In the Air." Very good film but definitely don't go see it if you're depressed or easily depressed, however, the movie itself is not the focus of this piece.
Given that it was Christmas Day with frazzled parents looking for something - anything - to do with their kids, you can imagine the crowd running to line up behind and between the ropes that will lead them to the promised land and mindless diversion for a couple of hours.
Search as we may we couldn't find the number for the line up for our theatre. The focus was to seek out number 10 but all that was visible were people lining up for theatres 8 and 9. After walking around in circles for a while along with other theatre 10 theatre goers, we spotted a guy wearing a Santa hat holding an electronic device wearing a name tag with the name of the theatre. Asking his assistance as to where the line up was for theatre 10, he pointed to the mass of humanity behind the ropes for theatres 8 and 9 and answered, "there!"
"Wrong!" I responded, "there is no chorded area for number 10.It doesn't exist!"
"Look - I should know," he answered defiantly, "I'm the manager of the theatre."
At this point our numbers had grown to a relatively large-ish crowd of people seeking out the elusive number 10 and there was a definite sense of hostility and possible rebellion in the air.
"You have your number 8. You have your number 9 but there is no line up for number 10," my husband added. "Go see for yourself!"
The manager took off followed by our number 10 group at his heels, stopping in front of number 8 and number 9.
"Oh - there is no number 10," he mumbled."I don't understand" after which he spoke to somebody on his walkie-talkie. "The ushers were supposed to set it up..."
Walking quickly he returned to the front of number 10 theatre with our group of number 10 close behind.
"Line up here," he told us even though we reminded him that it was not a corded area. We stayed there for five minutes after which the theatre manager returned, minus the Santa hat and beads of sweat on his forehead. This did not bode well.
"You're gonna have to move," he instructed, pointing a finger to the number 8 and 9 lines, The group did a collective look over and after seeing the extent and length of the line we told him, "no way! We can't just push in there. They won't let us in!"
"Then you won't be able to enter the theatre!" he threatened. "You're blocking the exit of the people exiting theatre 10."
"But why should we line up for theatres 8 and 9 when we're number 10?" I snapped back, determined to hold my ground in front of theatre 10. "We'll move to the side but don't make us move again."
"The usher just put up a rope for theatre 10," he said confidently, pointing to the empty space with the number "10" in front.
Once again our group number 10 went back to join the people in lineups 8 and 9, who at that point had been released from standing in and being contained behind a rope prison for who knows how long. They poured out while ushers removed the printed numbers 8 and 9 along with the ropes. Within 5 minutes the theatre manager returned to remove our rope and allowed us into the theater.
"Tell us again why we couldn't line up in front of the theatre?" I asked as we passed by him on our way to our seats.
Anyway, the movie was very good, the popcorn fresh and hot for a change, even though the line to get in wasn't. Just goes to show that life these days is filled with numbers and you gotta have the right number to get ahead - even in a movie theatre.
Given that it was Christmas Day with frazzled parents looking for something - anything - to do with their kids, you can imagine the crowd running to line up behind and between the ropes that will lead them to the promised land and mindless diversion for a couple of hours.
Search as we may we couldn't find the number for the line up for our theatre. The focus was to seek out number 10 but all that was visible were people lining up for theatres 8 and 9. After walking around in circles for a while along with other theatre 10 theatre goers, we spotted a guy wearing a Santa hat holding an electronic device wearing a name tag with the name of the theatre. Asking his assistance as to where the line up was for theatre 10, he pointed to the mass of humanity behind the ropes for theatres 8 and 9 and answered, "there!"
"Wrong!" I responded, "there is no chorded area for number 10.It doesn't exist!"
"Look - I should know," he answered defiantly, "I'm the manager of the theatre."
At this point our numbers had grown to a relatively large-ish crowd of people seeking out the elusive number 10 and there was a definite sense of hostility and possible rebellion in the air.
"You have your number 8. You have your number 9 but there is no line up for number 10," my husband added. "Go see for yourself!"
The manager took off followed by our number 10 group at his heels, stopping in front of number 8 and number 9.
"Oh - there is no number 10," he mumbled."I don't understand" after which he spoke to somebody on his walkie-talkie. "The ushers were supposed to set it up..."
Walking quickly he returned to the front of number 10 theatre with our group of number 10 close behind.
"Line up here," he told us even though we reminded him that it was not a corded area. We stayed there for five minutes after which the theatre manager returned, minus the Santa hat and beads of sweat on his forehead. This did not bode well.
"You're gonna have to move," he instructed, pointing a finger to the number 8 and 9 lines, The group did a collective look over and after seeing the extent and length of the line we told him, "no way! We can't just push in there. They won't let us in!"
"Then you won't be able to enter the theatre!" he threatened. "You're blocking the exit of the people exiting theatre 10."
"But why should we line up for theatres 8 and 9 when we're number 10?" I snapped back, determined to hold my ground in front of theatre 10. "We'll move to the side but don't make us move again."
"The usher just put up a rope for theatre 10," he said confidently, pointing to the empty space with the number "10" in front.
Once again our group number 10 went back to join the people in lineups 8 and 9, who at that point had been released from standing in and being contained behind a rope prison for who knows how long. They poured out while ushers removed the printed numbers 8 and 9 along with the ropes. Within 5 minutes the theatre manager returned to remove our rope and allowed us into the theater.
"Tell us again why we couldn't line up in front of the theatre?" I asked as we passed by him on our way to our seats.
Anyway, the movie was very good, the popcorn fresh and hot for a change, even though the line to get in wasn't. Just goes to show that life these days is filled with numbers and you gotta have the right number to get ahead - even in a movie theatre.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
MICHAEL MOORE GETS DOWN AND NASTY
Love him or hate him, one thing for sure is that Michael Moore, he of "Sicko" fame sure knows how to get attention. For example yesterday, Monday, July 9, Moore took on CNN's Wolf Blitzer leaving the veteran reporter more-or-less speechless. A bitter tirade of words flowed out of Moore's mouth as he touched upon subjects that included Iraq and the criticism of some of his facts in "Sicko."
As expected YouTube has the visuals here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJL1ax4KdoY
Writers & Friends
www.jrslater.com/forum
As expected YouTube has the visuals here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJL1ax4KdoY
Writers & Friends
www.jrslater.com/forum
Friday, June 22, 2007
TURNING THE CAMERA ON MICHAEL MOORE: NOT SO NICE
One thing for sure: wherever and whenever a Michael Moore film is released to the public, controversy follows. There is no denying that this is a documentary film maker who excels in getting the public to pay attention and then get them into the theatres, whereupon he presents his view of the subject at hand. For many people, therein lies the problem. As Moore himself has stated that a documentary film maker presents a point of view, period.
There is some irony in that the film makers - Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine are Canadians and in their film "Manufacturing Dissent", they turn their lens on Moore himself.The embryo for making their film is intriguing in that it started out as an attempt for the duo to speak with Moore, who at that time was their hero when it came to making doc. films. However, Moore for whatever reason, had no interest in talking to them. Not such a good idea since they ended up making a movie examining Moore and the validity of his methods in acquiring and using background information for his docs. Also interesting to note the content for their film was not acquired through Moore himself but through friends, former friends and colleagues.
Read the interviews and then go see the film. I plan to.
Trailer for film on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IUU7a4wB0
Writers & Friends
www.jrslater.com/forum
There is some irony in that the film makers - Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine are Canadians and in their film "Manufacturing Dissent", they turn their lens on Moore himself.The embryo for making their film is intriguing in that it started out as an attempt for the duo to speak with Moore, who at that time was their hero when it came to making doc. films. However, Moore for whatever reason, had no interest in talking to them. Not such a good idea since they ended up making a movie examining Moore and the validity of his methods in acquiring and using background information for his docs. Also interesting to note the content for their film was not acquired through Moore himself but through friends, former friends and colleagues.
Read the interviews and then go see the film. I plan to.
Trailer for film on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IUU7a4wB0
Writers & Friends
www.jrslater.com/forum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)