Misc. Thoughts: The 3:22 AM edition

[thehefner]

1.) After watching videos of him, I now suddenly want very, very much to see ex-professional wrestler and bestselling author Mick Foley, AKA Mankind, AKA Cactus Jack, perform Shakespeare. If he can adjust to the text, something many brilliant actors I know still have a hard time doing, I honestly think he could be an absolutely brilliant Shakespearian actor. I think he would be a fucking awesome MacBeth, for one. He could be a brilliant Falstaff. Hell, if thirty, fourty years, I'd like to see him play Lear.

2.) "Time Bandits" is like "Labyrinth," only it's fucked up. And no Bowie crotch. But it does have David Warner, and that's always a good thing. Always.

3.) As is "The Rules of Attraction." God, I know this movie isn't for anyone, but speaking as someone who was grinning at the end of "Requiem for a Dream," I love love love this movie. Where else are you going to see Fred Savage and the kid from "Rookie of the Year" as fucked-up cokehead junkies? Seriously, I ask you, where?

4.) I have a 15-page paper due on Monday. I've had weeks, months, to do it. I start research tomorrow, not long after I get lunch, presumably. Bye, everybody.

Comments

[dame-ratcliffe.livejournal.com]

Dude, what is anything worth without the Bowie crotch?

Oh, and I found it totally painful to watch Rules of Attraction. Ian Somerhalder is pretty cool, but Dawson screwing girl after girl, totally not my thing...

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I dunno what movie you were watching, he only has sex with two... and hardly enjoys himself either time.

Rules of Attraction == bleh.

[yancentric.livejournal.com]

the only thing decent about RoA was the europe montage. it was laden with too many cutesy effects that didn't seem to have any reason to be there other than it was a roger avery (tarantino-lite) movie. the characters weren't just reprehensible -- they were pointlessly reprehensible. too much style and no substance.

Re: Rules of Attraction == bleh.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Like I said, hardly for everyone, and yeah, I know most critics didn't like it for those very reasons. And the europe montage (and Dick) were generally the only thing that detractors liked of it. Usually the snob in me would be against the film for the reasons you bring up, but hey, what can I say, I enjoyed it a hell of a lot and so did Dave and Misty, my like-minded friends here.

[dame-ratcliffe.livejournal.com]

Still, it was Dawson trying to be carnal...it was just silliness trying to be serious. Anyway, glad you liked it...I just couldn't.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Well maybe that's the thing- I've never seen Dawson's Creek, so I had absolutely no basis for comparison. And I didn't take it as silliness trying to be serious; the tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

[dame-ratcliffe.livejournal.com]

Well, I've never really watched Dawson's Creek either...I don't know, it just didn't sit well with me. I'm much more of a flat out comedy person myself I guess.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and as proven with Vigil, I do like my black, black evil, pitch-black comedy, especially satire. If I ever do Jules Feiffer's "Little Murders" with the Rudes Second Stage, perhaps you may wanna avoid that one.

[dame-ratcliffe.livejournal.com]

I really liked Vigil though. I guess there is something about some black comedy's that makes me like them despite the darkness. It takes great execution, creativity, talent, etc. Vigil was definitely appreciated by me. Can't say why in particular vs. this movie, but there is some difference in that head of mine somewhere.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Well, considering how I feel about both works, I'll definitely take that as a strong compliment.