(no subject)
Aug. 24th, 2004 10:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
3pipeproblemI really wish I could update more, but nothing is going on in my life. So instead of profound thoughts or entertaining stories, I present you with...
All right, so there's this line in the movie about one of the characters going to the zoo and seeing a gorilla shit in its hand and then lick it. At that point I turned to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
beechball and said that any critic with half a brain would use that line as a point of reference when reviewing the film.
It was so bad. In a long, drawn-out way, too. The acting, however, was very, very good. Mark Ruffalo, of course, stood out because I love and adore him, but also because his character was so stupid and one-dimensional yet he somehow managed to find some depth ("Don't ever presume to understand the depths of my soul!" was one of his lines. Oh, yes.).
The basic premise is: there are two couples. They have affairs with one another's spouses. These are broken into short scenes with exceptionally bad dialogue (of the variety that's meant to sound profound) that all fade out just as they're about to get interesting.
I suppose I could compare it to Garden State, had I the time or the inclination. They're both episodic, character-based, and attempt some sort of realism. WDLHA just fails. I think part of the problem was that the scenes never gave you a feel for anything. There's supposed to have been something occurring before and something after them, but they felt like they'd come out of nowhere. It was all very stilted.
The characters...poor Peter Krause and Naomi Watts. They had nothing, I mean nothing to work with. Krause stared at a computer screen half the time. The other half he ogled creative writing students.
It was just...blah.
I want to see Touch of Pink, the movie where Kyle MacLachlan plays Cary Grant.
So, in short. Mark Ruffalo was good. One couple was Jack and Teri, which provided amusement for longer than it should have. I'd steer clear of this movie.
All right, so there's this line in the movie about one of the characters going to the zoo and seeing a gorilla shit in its hand and then lick it. At that point I turned to
beechball and said that any critic with half a brain would use that line as a point of reference when reviewing the film.It was so bad. In a long, drawn-out way, too. The acting, however, was very, very good. Mark Ruffalo, of course, stood out because I love and adore him, but also because his character was so stupid and one-dimensional yet he somehow managed to find some depth ("Don't ever presume to understand the depths of my soul!" was one of his lines. Oh, yes.).
The basic premise is: there are two couples. They have affairs with one another's spouses. These are broken into short scenes with exceptionally bad dialogue (of the variety that's meant to sound profound) that all fade out just as they're about to get interesting.
I suppose I could compare it to Garden State, had I the time or the inclination. They're both episodic, character-based, and attempt some sort of realism. WDLHA just fails. I think part of the problem was that the scenes never gave you a feel for anything. There's supposed to have been something occurring before and something after them, but they felt like they'd come out of nowhere. It was all very stilted.
The characters...poor Peter Krause and Naomi Watts. They had nothing, I mean nothing to work with. Krause stared at a computer screen half the time. The other half he ogled creative writing students.
It was just...blah.
I want to see Touch of Pink, the movie where Kyle MacLachlan plays Cary Grant.
So, in short. Mark Ruffalo was good. One couple was Jack and Teri, which provided amusement for longer than it should have. I'd steer clear of this movie.
