To the artistic people in charge of "The Shape of Things"
1. You really really REALLY needed to talk to and work with the people who created the cover art and trailer for this movie.
a) It wasn't a romantic comedy... why did you create artwork on the front of the DVD that makes it appear so? And, no, I'm not being unreasonable here... I've seen a lot of romantic comedies. A LOT. They all look like this on the front.
b) Why did you make all the characters on the front of the DVD look all hot and sexy. Or was that ironic?
c) Where was the warning that the movie wasn't going to be good?
2. Sometimes stage plays don't translate well onto the screen. This is a good example of that. I understand the theory and the statement and even the irony, but you can't coat the heavy point you were trying to make with a Hollywood gloss and expect it to work.
3. I think I could have liked this movie. Y'all did a weird job with it.
4. Maybe the play is better.
5. "Seduction is an art" is a really lame catch phrase thingy.
To Ebert and Roeper:
1. Did we even watch the same movie? Maybe you were reviewing something else?
To the person who rented the movie: ( yes, me )
1. You didn't have to watch the whole thing you know. It really wasn't that good.
To Paul Rudd:
1. I forgive you... you're still cute.
2. But really, you were the best part of the movie. Sorry about the ending, that must have sucked for you.
2 comments:
The exact same thing happened to me once. Except without the coat, or the friend who wears sunglasses on his head. Or the art project. Or the stuff with the friend. Also, I didn't work as a security guard, or get plastic surgery on my nose.
So yeah. Exactly the same.
Iiiiiiinteresting... So the movie was based on you then?
Post a Comment