Cranky Hanke’s Weekly Reeler May 8-14: Gatsby Renoir Lore Disconnect

In Theaters

Finally — it’s the weekend we get Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, a movie bound to polarize just about everyone, and a movie fairly certain to be mauled by a lot of critics, which perhaps makes it that much more interesting. At the same time, we get three new art titles and a kind of stealth attack from Tyler Perry.

I know I’m in the minority, but last week didn’t do all that much for me — and, yes, that means I thought Iron Man 3 was pretty bad. This week, however, boasts two films I’m pretty high on and one film I’ve been waiting to see for what seems like forever. There’s also one other art title that I haven’t seen (Mr. Souther tackled it) and something produced — but not made by — Tyler Perry.

The big picture of the week is, of course, Baz Luhrmann’s take on The Great Gatsby, which I know a lot of people are just waiting to pounce on because it doesn’t show the proper respect for a novel most of us were forced to read in high school. I think we may be fairly certain this isn’t going to be your high school teacher’s Gatsby.We may also be pretty sure — judging by the stills, the trailers, Luhrmann’s established over-the-top style and the bleating of purists — that this is a film that is in for some pretty rough seas. Some of the very few early reviews bear this out, while the more gossip-minded online pontificators are wallowing in delighted expectation of an impending disaster (it gives them something to talk about). Myself, well, I’m pretty jazzed about the film based on Luhrmann’s track record and the fact that I tend to admire filmmakers who are capable of bridging art and commerce — a feat that has few practitioners left standing. Let the outraged rage, I’ll be at The Carolina for the first 3-D showing on Friday. (Come on, if anybody can make 3-D really soar, it’s Luhrmann.)

Along with Gatsby, there are three noteworthy art titles — all of which are reviewed in this week’s paper. For me, at the top of the list — but only by a hair — is Renoir (opening at the Fine Arts), a film about the last days of the painter, the early days of his filmmaking son and the model who entranced them both. It’s more lyrical than, shall we say, action-packed, though there are certainly fires burning beneath its surface. But its greatest appeal to me is that it’s just so damned beautiful to look at. As I said to Ashevegas critic Edwin Arnaudin, “It’s certainly not the greatest movie I’ve ever seen, but, God, I’d like to live in it.” (Of course, then I realize that the folks in this film have a staff of servants to set up — and clean up after — those elaborate picnics and outdoor dinners.)

Nearly as good is Disconnect (opening at The Carolina), and it’s perhaps a little superior in terms of content since it explores the ways in which social media and our constant need for electronic connectivity drives us further apart than it brings us together. The stories used to tell this is a little on the melodramatic side, but the characters ring true and the drama is compelling. First-rate performances — including a straight dramatic turn from Jason Bateman — help a lot. It has no big advertising push and I doubt if many of you have even heard of it, but it’s certainly worth your time. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it should be seen, but I suspect — as is often the case with such films — those most in need of seeing it never will. Check out the review.

Also check out Justin Souther’s review for Lore (also opening at The Carolina). This drama about the children of an arrested Nazi war criminal having to make their way across occupied Germany at the end of World War II — which I haven’t seen — is apparently pretty strong stuff.

And then, there’s this other thing…

While Peeples — which may actually be called Tyler Perry Presents Peeples — wasn’t written or directed by (nor does it star) Tyler Perry, it was produced by him and has all the earmarks — possibly minus the dose of religion — of a Tyler Perry picture. Just look at its too-good-for-this-movie cast: Craig Robinson (well, maybe he’s not too good for this), Kerry Washington, David Alan Grier, S. Epatha Merkeson, Melvin VanPeebles, Diahann Carroll. That’s pure Perry. Otherwise, the film has all the appearances of being an all-black knock-off of Meet the Parents — with Robinson as the poor schnook at the mercy of his fiancée’s upscale family. The movie was written and directed by Tina Gordon Chism, who previously wrote ATL (2006) and Drumline (2002), but has never before directed a movie. Mirth may or may not ensue.

This week, the Fine Arts is dropping The Place Beyond the Pines, but it’s holding at The Carolina. The Carolina is dropping (predictably) Beyond the Hills and Room 237.

Special Screenings

Before getting to the main event, I want to remind readers of the Asheville Film Society’s screening of Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge! — on Wednesday, May 8 at 7:30 p.m. at The Carolina. If I had to make a list of movies that have to be seen on the Big Screen, Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge! would be in the top five. Sure, all movies are better in a theater on a large screen. Some, however, just plain don’t work anything like they were intended anywhere else. Moulin Rouge! is one such film. Now, I’m not saying I shun the DVD. In fact, I drove 20 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart to get my hands on it as soon as it was available at midnight. But I realize that the DVD is not the film—it is at best a souvenir of the film. That’s to say, that I’m pretty darn jazzed at the prospect of seeing it onscreen for the first time in 12 years this coming Wednesday.

When Moulin Rouge! came out in 2001, the musical was considered a dead genre — even more than the western. There hadn’t been — so far as I can recall — a big musical since Milos Forman’s Hair in 1979 and it had flopped. No one wanted to risk one. They were just too expensive and the public wasn’t buying them. Then — almost out of nowhere — came Luhrmann’s new take on the moribund genre, one that took advantage of new technology and Luhrmann’s ability to talk musicians and music companies into letting him use their back catalogues for very little money. Suddenly, the musical — in a transformation no one had foreseen -— was back with a vengeance. And now, it’s back on the big screen for one show only. Join us on Wednesday and see it for yourselves. Tickets are $5 for AFS members and $7 for the general public.

Also out of the ordinary is the Fine Arts Asheville Jewish Film Festival showing of the comedy Let My People Go! (2012) at 7 p.m. on Thu., May 9 and at 1 p.m. on Fri., May10. And Pack Memorial Library is showing the Cary Grant comedy Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948) at 3 p.m. on Tue., May 14.

The Hendersonville Film Society is on hiatus this week, owing to Mother’s Day. The Thursday Horror Picture Show is screening John Barrymore in Archie Mayo’s Svengali (1931) at 8 p.m. on Thu., May 9 in the Cinema Lounge at The Carolina. World Cinema is showing Jacques Tati’s Trafic (1971) on Fri., May 10 at 8 p.m. in the Railroad Library in the Phil Mechanic Building. The Asheville Film Society is running the classic Jean Harlow-William Powell-Myrna-Loy-Spencer Tracy comedy Libeled Lady (1936) at 8 p.m. on Tue., May 14 at 8 p.m. in the Cinema Lounge at The Carolina. More on all titles in this week’s Xpress — with complete reviews in the online edition.

On DVD

Probably the most interesting title to come out this week is Mama, but we also get Jack Reacher and the latest Nicholas Sparks soaper Safe Haven. Also up is the art title Upstream Color — a film that should have played here, but didn’t. This is the one I most want to see myself.

Notable TV Screenings

Not much out of the ordinary this week, though on Tuesday, May 14 TCM appears to be having a festival of movies made from Edna Ferber novels. That’s not all that interesting or out of the ordinary in itself, but this round they’ve opted to show the James Whale version of Show Boat (1936). There’s a movie that is always worth catching — and wondering why it’s not on DVD.

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress since December 2000. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

76 thoughts on “Cranky Hanke’s Weekly Reeler May 8-14: Gatsby Renoir Lore Disconnect

  1. Dionysis

    Um, in the heading, shouldn’t the word ‘Disconnent’ have a ‘c’ instead of a third ‘n’?

  2. Big Al

    The crappy reviews of “Iron Man 3″ kept me out of the theatres despite rain-induced cabin fever. I just caught up on my reading.

    I also agree with most IM3 reviews that IM2 was a big step down from the original (although I did like the Black Widow seque into “Avengers”). At the time it seemed to me like everyone, including critics, thought it was better than IM, which I could not understand. Did I misread something back then?

    I will be interested to se how LITERARY critics react to “Gatsby”, especially because of its’ canonical standing in American Literature (FanFare!!…dum-da-da-Dummmm…!), never mind that the first printing of the book was not well-received, or that no non-Engligh-major would read this thing unless our high school teachers made us. Not having been made to eat this apple I feel relieved that I can taste the orange as purely a period movie and not feel compelled to compare the two.

    I saw the preview for Renoir and noted its’ visual beauty as well, but was unimpressed by the story. Based on your experience after having actually seen it, I will definitely go, if only to soak in the scenery. It does not hurt that it is at my fave venue, Fine Arts Theatre.

    And “Peeples” might be good for a matnee. I love Craig Robinson, hell, anybody from “The Office” will get me in the door.

  3. Steven

    Interested to hear your thoughts on [i]Upstream Color[/i] (if they ever happen to make their way on here). I kind of loved it. I thought it was one of the most absorbing films I’ve seen in a while, and, to my surprise, I found the story and narrative relatively easy to follow. It’s not a film I’d recommend freely.

  4. Jeremy Dylan

    I’ll be at The Carolina for the first 3-D showing

    You never learn, do you.

    I’m similarly jazzed about this as you are, but I’ll be catching it in glorious 2D. It looks pretty choice from the trailers. Plus it was shot next door while I was at film school a couple of years ago.

  5. Ken Hanke

    Not having been made to eat this apple I feel relieved that I can taste the orange as purely a period movie and not feel compelled to compare the two.

    You should be able to in any case — an adaptation of a novel is as much the way the filmmaker responds to that novel as anything else, how he or she feels about, not merely a slavish reproduction of the book — a kind of novel for the illiterate. Films that merely reproduce books I’ve read have little interest for me. If that’s all I’m getting, I’d rather read the book.

  6. Ken Hanke

    Interested to hear your thoughts on Upstream Color (if they ever happen to make their way on here). I kind of loved it. I thought it was one of the most absorbing films I’ve seen in a while, and, to my surprise, I found the story and narrative relatively easy to follow. It’s not a film I’d recommend freely.

    Well, Young Edwin passed me a copy tonight, but my UK copy of LORDS OF SALEM came today, too…so it’ll be a day or so.

  7. Ken Hanke

    You never learn, do you?

    What’s to learn? 3D doesn’t give me a headache, so that’s not an issue. I am glad I saw Hugo in 3D (twice). I hold out similar hopes for this. After all, it was designed and shot in 3D, not just gussied up after the fact like Iron Man Trois.

  8. Big Al

    “…an adaptation of a novel is as much the way the filmmaker responds to that novel…”

    I agree, but let’s see how many AmLit/English major purists howl with righteous indignation at the slightest deviation.

  9. Jeremy Dylan

    For once, I might get the drop on Ken, as UPSTREAM COLOR will be screening at Sydney’s beautiful State Theatre next month as part of the Sydney Film Festival, so I’ll get to see it on the big screen.

  10. Xanadon't

    I was all set to watch The Great Gatsby in 2D. But after rewatching Moulin Rouge!, I’m not sure I can resist finding out what Luhrmann is up to with 3D gadgetry.

    But, as seems to happen often with the movies I anticipate most… I’m leaving town first thing Monday morning and I don’t yet see how I’m going to squeeze it in over the weekend.

  11. Ken Hanke

    I agree, but let’s see how many AmLit/English major purists howl with righteous indignation at the slightest deviation

    Yes, well, I have a two word response for that, but the paper frowns on using it. So far, the negative reviews mostly hinge on the idea of what Luhrmann “did to” the book, which is silly, because the book hasn’t changed a jot.

  12. Ken Hanke

    But, as seems to happen often with the movies I anticipate most… I’m leaving town first thing Monday morning

    You’re always leaving town first thing Monday morning. Are you leading a double life or are you a smuggler?

  13. Edwin Arnaudin

    …to my surprise, I found the story and narrative relatively easy to follow.

    Agreed. No outright explanations and a lot of the tiny details remain ambiguous, but all the primary clues are there.

  14. Ken Hanke

    Based on a single viewing — I’m going to try it again — I’m the voice of dissent on Upstream Color. Oh, I can follow it alright, but I just didn’t like it that much. And I seriously did not care for the musical score. I feel like I’m missing something.

  15. Steven

    Michael Phillips on [i]The Great Gatspy[/i]: “… even the late Ken Russell would balk.”

    Not sure what he meant by that exactly, but I felt that it needed to be posted here.

  16. Ken Hanke

    I assume he means it’s even more extravagant than Ken’s work. I don’t know if he meant that as a compliment, but that’s how it works for me.

  17. Me

    Hasn’t Phillips used that line before, i remember posting something similar for another film he reviewed.

  18. Xanadon't

    You’re always leaving town first thing Monday morning. Are you leading a double life or are you a smuggler?

    Why can’t a guy just like going on 3 or 4 day canoeing trips now and then? Is that how you spell it? c-a-n-o-e-i-n-g ? That’s where you paddle around and see if you can catch any fish and set up camp and stuff? Why, you got anything that needs smuggling?

  19. Ken Hanke

    Why can’t a guy just like going on 3 or 4 day canoeing trips now and then? Is that how you spell it? c-a-n-o-e-i-n-g ? That’s where you paddle around and see if you can catch any fish and set up camp and stuff?

    How do you spell canoeing? Like this: “Something Ken wouldn’t be caught dead doing.” My idea of camp extends no further than Harvey Fierstein in a dress singing “Love for Sale.” Camping? If God had wanted us to do that, he wouldn’t have invented the Holiday Inn.

    Why, you got anything that needs smuggling?

    See? That sounds so much more reasonable.

  20. Ken Hanke

    Hasn’t Phillips used that line before, i remember posting something similar for another film he reviewed

    There is something familiar about it.

  21. Jeremy Dylan

    Why can’t a guy just like going on 3 or 4 day canoeing trips now and then?

    At least you’re not hiking the Appalachian trail.

  22. Jeremy Dylan

    That’s nothing to beware. Be hopeful for dueling banjos, and if you’re lucky, a dobro or fiddle as well.

  23. Ken Hanke

    Then you will know you are in the ninth circle of hillbilly hell.

  24. Jeremy Dylan

    I used to be in a bluegrass Black Sabbath cover band called ‘Hillbilly Hell’.

  25. Xanadon't

    Made it out to see Gatsby before work today. I’m not convinced it’s a bonafide Great movie (though I do fully intend to see it again, this time without the 3D trimmings) but I certainly had a better time with it than the vast majority of critics seem to have. Its 48% approval rating is ridiculous to me.

    And while it’s been a spell since I’ve read the book, I don’t think anyone can say that Luhrman displayed any irreverence toward the source material.

  26. Ken Hanke

    Did you go in a canoe? I know you didn’t make it to the noon showing, ‘cuz I was the only male of my gender in that one.

    I pretty much am convinced of its bonafide greatness, but you’ll have to wait for my review to see me make my case.

  27. Xanadon't

    Did you go in a canoe?

    Nah, I went in a t-shirt and jeans.

    I know you didn’t make it to the noon showing

    Sadly it came down to a matter of Carmike or nothing.

    I pretty much am convinced of its bonafide greatness, but you’ll have to wait for my review to see me make my case.

    Glad to hear that, and I’m interested to see if there will be anything I’ll want to try to argue. But since I’ll be up to my neck in various smuggling activities any points of protest I may have will likely have to wait a few days.

  28. Ken Hanke

    But since I’ll be up to my neck in various smuggling activities any points of protest I may have will likely have to wait a few days.

    That’s almost as sad as having to go see it at…that place. But one wonders how long you will be off in a world without plumbing (brrrr), since there’ll be nothing to argue with till Tuesday afternoon.

  29. Xanadon't

    There’s no plumbing in Philadelphia? I mean, I’ve heard it’s not the cleanest of cities, but I had no idea…

    Wait, I can’t remember if I’m leading a double life, if I’m a rugged outdoors-man, or if the lady and I are simply heading north to stay with a couple of friends that relocated to Pennsylvania. Ah, but I have a receipt for a house-warming gift that suggests the latter is most likely.

  30. Ken Hanke

    Well, this sounds better than this rugged outdoorsman stuff. (If I was slightly less tasteful than I am — that in itself should alarm you — I’d tell my only camping joke. Actually, it’s more of a riddle. Maybe some day — probably in person.)

  31. Me

    I dismissed this film after the trailer broke the enigma of Gatsby. The only Baz Luhrmann film ive ever watched and liked is the Romeo and Juliet film and that was probably because i was young and liked how it turned a traditional story on its ear.

    A little late but also on tv this week is the premiere of Christopher Guests new tv show Family Tree on HBO.

  32. Ken Hanke

    I dismissed this film after the trailer broke the enigma of Gatsby.

    I am shocked — shocked — even though I have no idea what your statement means, especially in the context of a character most of the world already knows.

    The only Baz Luhrmann film ive ever watched and liked is the Romeo and Juliet film and that was probably because i was young and liked how it turned a traditional story on its ear.

    But now you’re all wise and not so easily bamboozled and flim-flammed. It must be wonderful.

  33. Ken Hanke

    The only “male of my gender”? WTF?

    It’s actually a Woody Allenism. You oughtn’t be thrown so easily.

  34. Me

    One of the trailers i saw was of him literally telling his backstory a major plot point ruined.

    Im not wise im pretty dumb, or just maybe Luhrmann’s not a good filmmaker and a good citizen – recycler.

  35. Ken Hanke

    One of the trailers i saw was of him literally telling his backstory a major plot point ruined

    In the first place, directors very rarely have anything to do with the trailer. In the second, I’d guess that a large — the largest — percentage of the audience already know the story.

    just maybe Luhrmann’s not a good filmmaker and a good citizen – recycler

    And just maybe you’re wrong, too, but you’ll never know since you’ve dismissed the film without the actual effort of seeing it.

  36. Me

    I don’t care who’s responsible for the trailer, and i doubt a large population have actually read it they may be familiar with it but i wouldn’t go as far as to say a “large” population know the story. If if a large population know the story why ruin it in the trailer for he few who haven’t.

    Luhrmann would make a good high school it teacher.

  37. Me

    If it turns people on to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s work thats fine. If the large population is like me and already “know” the character as you inclined then why would they even go see it? Only to go see a recycled version, i don’t really see the point when there so new and better stuff out there to see.

    Luhrmann makes films Liberace would have on constant run at his house.

  38. Ken Hanke

    If it turns people on to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s work thats fine. If the large population is like me and already “know” the character as you inclined then why would they even go see it? Only to go see a recycled version, i don’t really see the point when there so new and better stuff out there to see.

    Then don’t go see it, but don’t start railing about things you haven’t seen. Criticizing from a point of complete ignorance is of dubious merit. Your final sentence, by the way, is actually verging on the offensive.

  39. Jeremy Dylan

    I haven’t seen the film yet, but calling it a ‘recycled’ version seems like a misnomer. Of what is it a recycled version? The Redford film? The Paul Rudd telemovie? The Alan Ladd version?
    The trailer doesn’t look particularly similar to any of those.

    Of the book? Well, it’s an adaptation of the book. If that’s your criteria, then everything from THE MALTESE FALCON to THE GODFATHER to LORD OF THE RINGS to GET SHORTY to TOMMY could be considered recycled films.

    If the large population is like me and already “know” the character as you inclined then why would they even go see it?

    The same reason anybody ever goes to see a film of a story they’ve enjoyed in another medium. They want to see that story retold again in a fresh manner, interpreted anew by other craftspeople. Or they want to see a slavish recreation of the source material akin to an illustrated audio book. Either way, it’s not a new or unusual phenomenon.

  40. Jeremy Dylan

    there so new and better stuff out there to see.

    I can’t speak to much of what’s in US cinemas at the moment, but that sure as hell ain’t true here down under. There’s currently one film in current release that I’ve substantially enjoyed (and that’s by no means perfect).

  41. Me

    Ken dont be hypocritical you rail on stuff you have no intention of seeing all the time.

    You’re probably right the term recycled is probably not a good way of putting it, the term “cover version” more suits it.

    Im being a little hypocritical myself probably, i did go see On The Road, but i hadn’t really read the whole book and just figured it would save me the trouble.

  42. Ken Hanke

    There’s a big difference in between prognosticating that Scary Movie 5 is likely going to be a piece of shit and dismissing a serious attempt at making a film because you think it gave away (which none of the three I’ve seen actually do) too much. If all you’re interested in is the story and you’ve read the book, why were you ever considering seeing it in the first place?

    You’re probably right the term recycled is probably not a good way of putting it, the term “cover version” more suits it.

    So is John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon a “cover version?” And if so, of what — the novel, the 1931 version, the 1936 version?

  43. Me

    I never had any interest in seeing anything Baz Luhrmann puts out in the least.

    I’ve never seen the Maltese Falcon or read the book but it sounds like a just a remake.

  44. Jeremy Dylan

    If we continue with this analogy, Me, do you refuse to listen to more than one recording of a particular song. Do you write off the Beatles version of “Rock’n’Roll Music” because Chuck Berry recorded it first? Or any version of “Night and Day” that isn’t Astaire? or the Joe Cocker version of “With A Little Help From My Friends” or Janis Joplin’s version of “Piece of My Heart”?

  45. Ken Hanke

    I never had any interest in seeing anything Baz Luhrmann puts out in the least.

    So why — other than to be a jackass — did you feel compelled to tell us when you decided to dismiss a movie you’d already chosen to dismiss?

    I’ve never seen the Maltese Falcon or read the book but it sounds like a just a remake.

    You really need to see more movies instead of frittering away your time trolling websites.

  46. Jeremy Dylan

    I’ve never seen the Maltese Falcon or read the book but it sounds like a just a remake.

    The book sounds like a remake? Or the movie sounds like ‘just a remake’? It’s widely considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time.

    CASABLANCA is adapted from a play. Is it not worth watching?

  47. Big Al

    “Ken dont be hypocritical you rail on stuff you have no intention of seeing all the time…Me”

    I would need to see proof of this. I doubt you could pay me enough to sit through a lot of the crap Ken is duty-bound to watch and comment on. No wonder he is cranky.

    If you really want to be a jackass, “Me”, go to the craigslist rants and raves. Or grow some wit. You are just dragging this thread down.

  48. Steven

    I feel like Me is someone that strayed away from the IMDb forums and, for one reason or another, found himself here.

  49. Ken Hanke

    I doubt you could pay me enough to sit through a lot of the crap Ken is duty-bound to watch and comment on

    They don’t pay me enough, but I do it anyway.

  50. Ken Hanke

    I hate to think. If we ever book Lisztomania, you will owe it to me to show up.

  51. Ken Hanke

    I’m talking really book it in a theater on the big screen.

  52. Me

    Ken

    Because i wanted to express my opinion about the way they treat trailers these days. What’s your reason for dismissing films you’ve already made your mind up about without any intention of seeing them? At least i have read the book and seen the Redford version before i dismissed Luhrmann’s version based on a trailer.

    I see about two or three movies a week.

    Jeremy

    Why would i say the book sounds like a remake, the correct term for that would be adaptation.

    Steven

    That imdb site is way to 1999 i, i preferred the old allmovie site before they changed it.

  53. Ken Hanke

    Because i wanted to express my opinion about the way they treat trailers these days.

    And you did this by saying that a trailer made you dismiss a movie you had already dismissed.

    What’s your reason for dismissing films you’ve already made your mind up about without any intention of seeing them?

    I don’t even know what that means. I already said there’s a difference between being pretty sure that Vampires Suck actually would (and I saw it and it did) and dismissing a serious attempt at making something of value.

    At least i have read the book and seen the Redford version before i dismissed Luhrmann’s version based on a trailer.

    Why would you see the Redford version? Isn’t it just a cover of the Ladd film, which is just a cover of the Baxter film, which is just a cover of the book? And anyway, you’ve already said that you dismissed the new one before you saw the trailer.

    I see about two or three movies a week.

    See more, type less.

    Why would i say the book sounds like a remake, the correct term for that would be adaptation.

    The book would be an adaptation of what?

    That imdb site is way to 1999 i, i preferred the old allmovie site before they changed it

    But if they didn’t change it that site would be so 1999, too.

  54. Orbit DVD

    I’m talking really book it in a theater on the big screen.

    And I would show up again, because this is LISZTOMANIA we’re talking about.

  55. Ken Hanke

    And well you should. It’s all depdendent on whether or not WB makes a DCP available.

  56. Me

    “The book would be an adaptation of what?”

    You’re right i guess in his hypothetical question if someone made another version of the book it would just be an updated edition not technically and adaptation.

    “But if they didn’t change it that site would be so 1999, too.”

    Wholly crap imdb has been around since 1990 almost since the internet.

    “Why would you see the Redford version?”

    I guess the same reason i watched Luhrmann’ Romeo and Juliet, it was that time of my life as a kid when i was just discovering these great stories and was less cynical.

    “And you did this by saying that a trailer made you dismiss a movie you had already dismissed.”

    Uh huh.

    “I don’t even know what that means. I already said there’s a difference between being pretty sure that Vampires Suck actually would (and I saw it and it did) and dismissing a serious attempt at making something of value.”

    What would that “difference” be?

  57. Ken Hanke

    You’re absolutely hell-bent on digging yourself into a deeper credibility hole, aren’t you?

  58. Ken Hanke

    Why do i need credibility, and for what?

    I just assumed (silly me) that you intended for people to take what you post seriously.

    Did you read James Franco’s review of the film

    Yes.

  59. Ken Hanke

    That’s nice, though I’d never heard of him (though I see he and I have the same birthday) and I still don’t know what film he liked. Gatsby?

  60. Ken Hanke

    Well, we’re all pretty much nerds — only the object of our nerdery varies.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.