RE: Junebug...or not
Sorry you didn't enjoy it that much, Steve. Tastes in feature film vary; I found "Junebug" to be quite enjoyable.
Personally, I find character to be most important in character-based film projects. "Junebug" was a film about rather realistic characters and the way they interact with each other. As an aside, I am a huge 007 fan; I expect an incredible adventure and story from "Casino Royale." But I don't expect it to be "Junebug."
Considering that I grew up amongst a few characters that could've been understudies of "Junebug" cast members, I feel that I can speak with a certain amount of authority on this subject. The characters that made the story of "Junebug" were dead on and, acting as they would, created the story.
Steve: There seems to have been no good reason for the art dealer and the Carolina boy to get married other than sex and to provide the writer with an excuse to throw the cosmopolitan Yank in amongst the bucolic Southrons.
Then you are oblivious of the appeal of (us) Carolina boys.
The story might have worked a little better if Pfafftown, NC and its denizens weren't nearly identical to just about every other suburban locale in America.
Really? I found it quite observant that the story found Pfafftown a perfect parallel to the majority of suburban US locales...
There is an utterly bizarre tableau in the middle of the movie in which he shows his pointlessly pornographic and violent artwork to Davitz' character and gives a garbled explanation about being on a mission of some sort.
You're obviously unaware of the story of the late James Harold Jennings, a real-life artist based in Pinnacle, NC that is now world-renowned in the art world. To me, his story's inclusion bolstered the film's real-world environment.
The entire movie simply amounted to "some stuff that happened to some regular people." I can go visit a neighbor for that, I don't need to watch a movie.
The film wasn't shot for you, Steve. It was shot for those who don't live where you (and I) live.
Personally, I find character to be most important in character-based film projects. "Junebug" was a film about rather realistic characters and the way they interact with each other. As an aside, I am a huge 007 fan; I expect an incredible adventure and story from "Casino Royale." But I don't expect it to be "Junebug."
Considering that I grew up amongst a few characters that could've been understudies of "Junebug" cast members, I feel that I can speak with a certain amount of authority on this subject. The characters that made the story of "Junebug" were dead on and, acting as they would, created the story.
Steve: There seems to have been no good reason for the art dealer and the Carolina boy to get married other than sex and to provide the writer with an excuse to throw the cosmopolitan Yank in amongst the bucolic Southrons.
Then you are oblivious of the appeal of (us) Carolina boys.
The story might have worked a little better if Pfafftown, NC and its denizens weren't nearly identical to just about every other suburban locale in America.
Really? I found it quite observant that the story found Pfafftown a perfect parallel to the majority of suburban US locales...
There is an utterly bizarre tableau in the middle of the movie in which he shows his pointlessly pornographic and violent artwork to Davitz' character and gives a garbled explanation about being on a mission of some sort.
You're obviously unaware of the story of the late James Harold Jennings, a real-life artist based in Pinnacle, NC that is now world-renowned in the art world. To me, his story's inclusion bolstered the film's real-world environment.
The entire movie simply amounted to "some stuff that happened to some regular people." I can go visit a neighbor for that, I don't need to watch a movie.
The film wasn't shot for you, Steve. It was shot for those who don't live where you (and I) live.
posted by Strother | 12:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home