Five stars. I give this five stars. Five stars is what I give this, folks. I am giving five stars to the movie Frozen, although if I were rating the review here, well, I would give that five stars as well.
Aw, come on, Bob. Come on, come on, come on, come on. We BOTH know Spring Breakers is a great movie!
The version I bought has a different cover than the one pictured here. Damn. That's what I get for buying it at K-mart.
Come on, "totally uncalled for"? I didn't read this review when it first came out, but having read it now, I call for it, I call for it a thousandfold (assuming one can call for something seven years after it has already arrived). And "off-base on so many levels", really? No way. I can clearly see a runner on second base up on Level 3, and two more runners on second and third bases down on Level 1. Then again, it may simply be the case that I've fallen asleep while typing again, and am just describing a subconscious dreamscape of mine in which baseball games are being played on each level of a parking garage. Still, the scene described in said dreamscape seems to pretty well demolish your claim that the review is "off-base on so many levels".
Now, before you criticize this comment, you should know that I wore a prosthetic nose as I typed it, thus it is beyond reproach.
If "looks" means a leathery face and lots of squinting, then I wholeheartedly concur. Or at least three-quarters-heartedly. No, check that, I whole-spleenedly concur. But seriously, is Eastwood just constantly looking into the sun or what?
I don't know. I could ask him, if you want. But I don't really know him that well. Or at all, really. But I suppose I could ask him out for a cup of coffee, watch sunsets with him, maybe even be his partner in a ballroom dancing class (Intermediate level, I'll have you know). Then, after all that, I shall ask him if he indeed still expects to be taken seriously as a film reviewer. Although actually, that almost sounds like more work than it's worth. Nah, I'm not doing it. I guess we'll just never know if he still expects to be taken seriously as a film reviewer (unless he, like, I don't know, continues to regularly write serious film reviews for the Tucson Weekly).
Oh, sorry, did you expect to be taken seriously as a commenter?
Oh. I guess I wouldn't mind if DiGiovanna moved to France, as long as France then moved to here. But I hear that continental drift takes a long time, and I'm not sure I'd be willing to wait that long. Oh well. Come hither, France. Come hither.
I don't know if we would all be happier living in France. I guess it depends on who exactly you mean by "we". If "we" means all US citizens, then things could get a bit crowded over there. Plus, by deserting our current territory, we would basically be leaving this land up for grabs between Canada and Mexico. That could result in some sort of conflict, perhaps of the war variety. I don't currently have the sources necessary to properly speculate as to who would win that war, but let's just say it would be Canada.
If, on the other paw, "we" means a certain group of Tucsonans (specifically those who regularly or semi-regularly use their sight-organs to read the film review section of this here periodical known colloquially as "The Tucson Weekly"), then I am still not sure whether or not it is a good idea for "us" (me) to move to France. I admit that I am prone to pine for a piece or a parcel of Camembert from time to time. But I am troubled by the possibility that the French countryside might wax a wee bit frigid during the months which, if viewed as part of a seasonal cycle (or circle), would be positioned opposite from those of the summer season. And I don't speak any French (though I occasionally hear some). So I don't know. Quit bothering me.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation