The debate never happened. The defendant, Lipstadt, refused to take the stand.It was David Irving (representing himself) against Lipstadt/Penguin's vast team of lawyers, debating not historical fact but points of law.
Separately, Lipstadt has firmly stated her refusal NEVER to debate anyone who disagrees with her about the Holocaust. What does that tell you? Irving is ready anytime.
Let me be the first to say, this article IS...LIT
Love reading you as much as ever.
The headline is misleading as this article is not about Team America: World Police.
For anyone who'd like to explore this topic further, you can find answers to questions at the Nonhuman Rights Project website...here's the Q&A page: http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/qa-ab…
Oh please it seems your review is trying to show you have a higher than average standard for criticism of films than others but I find it is precisely to impress others.I find your review of The Man Who Knew Infinity, quite harsh, especially when other comments from around the world have reviewed it and have such a high regard for this film. Your suggestion that the English language he was using in the film is not the one the real person would use is shallow criticism at best.
Totally agree that this movie was less than successful. Nice to see another critic who didn't shower it with (undeserved) praise.
Oh my God, you are incredible! You're so right about this film! It's not trying to have a terrific story or complex characters, it's trying to be an adrenaline-filled, immersive, fun thrill ride and it succeeds on every level, and THAT'S why it's a GREAT movie! I love movie critics like you, people who really understand that there's more to appreciate in a film than just plots and character arcs.
I came all the way from Rotten Tomatoes to tell you that you completely misinterpreted this film.
This is a terrible, terrible review. Notable inaccuracies indicate the reviewer either wasn't paying attention.
In no way does Winstead's character resemble the "manic pixie dream girl" character type. Our reviewer apparently read a buzz phrase on the internet and thought it would make this piece sound hip. Winstead is the protagonist, for crying out loud.
In no way is Goodman's character a revival of his "Barton Fink" persona. (What movie did this reviewer watch?) It is in fact the inverse. His character in BF is a back-slapping, glad-handing everyman with a well-masked dark side. His character here is a paranoid, demanding taskmaster who visibly labors to keep his ever-present rage from manifesting at all times. One of these guys you'd like to have dinner with, the other one -- not a chance.
And finally -- yes, it *is* a spoiler to reveal to one's readers how the a turns out. By letting everyone know the ultimate nature of Goodman's character, you rob them of the considerable tension that carries the entire second act. That reveal doesn't work for this reviewer? Fine. It's petty and unprofessional to then ruin it for the readers.
The overwhelmingly positive score at RottenTomatoes indicates that audiences and critics alike are enjoying this "piece of garbage movie." This reviewer is either smarter than everyone in the room, or she doesn't know what she's talking about. I wonder which it might be.
Sorry Molly...this movie was the worst one I have seen for many years...my wife wanted to turn on her phone to play solitaire and I was bored to death.
A good, insightful review that gets at the heart of what, for me, didn't quite work about the movie but which I couldn't quite put my finger on. That it took an easy path explains a lot of gaps that ended up making the film more mainstream and less courageously indy. That said, both stars are indeed that. You feel in them a shared commitment to the material, as well as a connection between them that goes far beyond what's asked of them on the page.
"Pixels creates a world where the citizens willingly elected Paul Blart, Mall Cop as president, and yet I'm expected to root for these people in their fight against the aliens."
Hahaa! You're sensational. I put in a few similar cents at Rottentomatoes: Only morbid curiosity and a dark, pathological need to punish myself via cinema compelled me to watch "Pixels". Don't get me wrong, when I see a preview for a hot new comedy starring Adam Sandler AND Kevin James, two comedic actors about as funny as a mime at an execution, I jump out of my seat & order tickets six months in advance like the next guy. But every time yet another one gets greenlit, funded and produced my faith in humanity dies just a little bit.
Should we assume that every woman in a man-dominated field is "relying" on the "novelty" of their "gender?"
Sub question: Assuming the alternative, that some women may not be relying on the novelty of their gender, how do these women go about convincing readers like you?
Perhaps the solution is to either force women to be interested in such positions, or to have them acquire desirable skills and experience rather than rely on the "novelty" of their gender.
Props for the pitch-perfect takedown! I've watched Hou's films before and lord, are they slow-moving. It's nice to read a reviewer that isn't intimidated to say this isn't her thing.
This film blew me away. I also got a Malick feel (although I disagree with your assertion that Malick is boring. Philistine!). The cinematographer, Lubezki, did work on Tree of Life, so maybe that's where that feeling comes from. Good review.
All of which is a long way of saying, "The usual Disney crap."
I hope it comes to Kalispell...would love to see it!
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation