|
>But I bet you watch Curly Sue at least once >everyday don't you?
that movie traumatized me it was so bad. and what did ebert give it-AAAHHHHHHHH!!!! 3 stars!!!! maybe i have to rethink my original thesis.
he writes-
"Curly Sue" is a cornball, soupy, syrupy, sentimental exercise in audience manipulation, but that's the good news, because this is a movie that works. I don't know how and I don't know why, but somehow the film got around my guard, overcame my cynicism, and left me sitting there with a grin on my face.
So, sure, if you're a hard-bitten intellectual and you're into serious films and don't like to get taken for a sucker with cornball manipulation, this isn't your film. Hey, I feel like that myself most of the time. But if occasionally you come down with an attack of warm-heartedness and let a sentimental movie slip past you, then "Curly Sue" is likely to blindside you. It's not great and it's not deep, but it sure does have a heart.
>You know Walsh is even harder on films than I am.
impossible. and i thought . . .well, you know what they say: the devil you know . . .
>> eff >>the soap. > >that's why you stink, Ricky.
i set myself up for that one. nice shot.
>Personally I don't like any movies made after 1914. > >I'm old school. > >As a matter of fact, my favorite movies are actually just >still photographs from the late 18 hundreds.
i woulda guessed cave drawings. you are much more contemporary than i assumed.
>But Ricky, you should never "cater" to your audience.
if he were an artist, true. but the man has to keep a job and just can't throw grapefruits (ahem) at every thing. plus, i doubt he's "catering" to a particular group, just not trying to alienate them.
>Okay, Ricky. But . . . just make sure to post your thoughts >on David Walsh when you get around to reading him. And make >sure to read enough of him to get a good idea.
will do.
|