|
|||||
|
Well, I’m glad I didn’t pay to see this in the theater, but watching the library’s copy for free (thanks to my girlfriend) was just fine. There’s a little too much story and not quite enough jokes, and at least half of the jokes are weak serves, and probably a quarter of those involve star Dan Fogler . . . → Read More: balls of fury Drug stories are all the same. Things start kinda bad, then they get a LOT worse. After that it doesn’t really matter if they get better or not. The point is made, it’s always the same, you know what it is from the start, and if you don’t use, it doesn’t really apply . . . → Read More: requiem for a dream There’s little to say about this inoffensive fluff piece except that the smattering of reviews I just peeked at were very kind to the females in it. Hugh Grant is Hugh Grant again with Andrew Ridgeley sprinkles on top, and though he’s played this part so many times he could hardly help having mastered it, . . . → Read More: music & lyrics Old movie night again at the Stanford Theater! This time it was North by Northwest, one of the best. I have a hard time picking a favorite Hitchcock film but this one’s in the running for sure. It also contains the scariest scene from any Hitchcock film: Cary Grant in a towel! Okay, the . . . → Read More: north by northwest I always assumed that I would have two jobs when I grew up. One would be a job with a salary and benefits. The other would be fiction writing. Since college, I’ve had jobs with salaries and benefits. I haven’t done a lot of fiction writing. I’ve typed a lot of words, it’s true. . . . → Read More: writing vs. blogging: full disclosure / postscript The other day, my sister, in her Livejournal, linked to a rant about how Livejournal in specific and blogging in general interferes with the art, craft, hobby, and profession of fiction writing. This is the rant. I hate the word “rant,” at once falsely modest and self-excusing. I hate the way this rant . . . → Read More: writing vs. blogging Utterly. Brilliant. Made up 200% for that Dalek trash. This is easily the best episode they’ve done to date and probably one of the best in the entire series, going back to 1963. Why they waited till the third season to mine this vein is a mystery; maybe they needed the character to be fully established . . . → Read More: doctor who: human nature Funny how all it takes is one dog of a two-parter like this to puncture my swelling enthusiasm for this show. You’d think they could knock those out of the park, since they have the equivalent of four of the old-school episodes to develop the story and don’t have to rush it out in . . . → Read More: doctor who: evolution of the daleks I’ll probably end up posting more commentary on encyclops.com soon, but okay, okay, I finally have warmed to the new Dr. Who. I still think the plotting has a tendency toward great setups with incredibly stupid endings, but I’ve really begun to enjoy it. I’ve gotten through the first two seasons now and am a few . . . → Read More: the new who review |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 encyclops - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
