Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The night before

So, C. is here and we're more or less packed, kind of ... I'm bringing hardly anything so packing's real quick this time. :-) Since the ticket cost hardly anything and we're staying for free at Sol's place, if there's anything I discover that I desperately need, I can afford to just buy it. ;-)

Anyway ... we're watching a movie now that C.'s here anyway - because bad movies are more fun when you watch them with someone - and we kind of got inspired to watch it at BookCrossing meetup on Sunday. We got to talking about Twilight, and it turned out that while neither C. nor I had seen the movie, she actually had it on DVD. Her brother-in-law gave it to her for Christmas, but she hasn't gotten around to watching it ... or, in fact, removing the plastic wrapping on it. :-D So we decided to watch it together tonight. Well, now we're watching it, and I've gotta say, what a complete & utter piece of shit this movie is.

One thing I really hate in a movie is slow motion. Seriously, I can't stand it. For me, when I see slow motion in a movie scene, that's like the director is saying to me, I got nothing. It's like he's saying, I got nothing to say and nothing to show you, so I have no choice but to resort to these pathetic effects to pretend like there's something here. But usually there's nothing and the disguise doesn't work. This movie is such a total piece of crap that they started up with the slow-mo at 08:48. Seriously. I am so happy that I didn't pay to see this in a theater. I think I would have been tempted to walk out of there, cause this really is beyond worthless.

Teenagers are so stupid. Buffy, come back ... !!!!

9 comments:

Paz said...

you see Findabars link fo LOLcats version, funny,
BTW have a great time

DES said...

Wow, a young David Boreanaz... Almost makes me want to turn to the other side ;)

James said...

Hope that Buffy picture was intended to be ironice. Either that or they got the grammar wrong in the caption because "Sarah Michelle Gellar" and "can act" don't really have any business appearing near each other in any sentence that exists here in the real world.

Also hope that you don't read this before we meet (well, hopefully meet) while you're in Blighty. Taking sarcastic swipes at you is more fun when you can't take literal swipes back at me...

James said...

I suppose I'd better make a comment about my comment before anyone else does...

No, my mispelling of "ironic" wasn't intended to be ironic. I just have big chunky fingertips, all right? That means I'm no good at origami or building replicas of famous landmarks out of matches, either... Pity me.

DES said...

We'll just have to agree to disagree wrt. SMG's acting talent... but I read “can act” as “can fend for herself”. I can't speak for whoever made that pic, though—and I have to admit that grammatically, your interpretation makes more sense.

DES said...

It just occurred to me that you could make the exact same quip about True Blood, and surely you're not going to tell me Anna Paquin can't act? Small golden statuette says she can.

findabair said...

I certainly agree with both interpretations of 'act' as related to SMG/Buffy (G. and I are doing a Buffy re-run these days; just finished season two *sniff*).

And I suppose Anna Paquin can act - I just find her annoying :) Though certainly an annoying, well-acted character is by far preferable to Bella, who is annoying and badly acted.

This is the link that was mentioned.

DES said...

I guess Sookie can be annoying sometimes—annoyingly unaware of the danger she puts herself and others in, and sometimes a little too close to the stereotypical “infuriatingly indecisive woman”—but she's a strong and well-defined dramatic character, which Buffy wasn't until around season 4, and perhaps not even then.

I haven't seen the Twilight films, but I imagine Bella is a cardboard cutout defined only in terms of her interaction with the dark handsome male love interest? Basically a Mary Sue?

OBTW: Twilight as viewed by xkcd (if you don't get it, read this and this) and failbooking (yes, it's fake)

DES said...

BTW, slow motion is not always bad. I've seen some egregious examples, but in Terminator 2: Judgement Day, for instance, there are (if I recall correctly) two slow motion scenes: one at the mall when John sees the T-800 raise his shotgun and ostentatiously point it at him, and the other at the hospital when Sarah sees the T-800 come out of the elevator with John. In both cases, I think the slow motion accurately reflects how John and Sarah, respectively, perceive the scene.

I wish James Cameron would make more films like The Terminator and Aliens and fewer like Titanic and Avatar... Unfortunately, the almighty Box Office (all hail!) disagrees.