Well, old... 25. Feels old. I can actually remember when anything above 18 seemed old, and a time when anything above 24 was basically ancient.
And then there was the time when you were actually 18 and it didn't seem old at all, and still anything above 25 was.
And now I'm 25. And I have a house and rent to pay, and a steady-ish job (well, as far as my boss is concerned, at least) and I'm looking for a normal and long-term relationship, and I can't stay up a whole night without looking like something that should be staked back into it's coffin the next day.
So yes, I'm old.
On the plus side, this means my "little brother" is 21 now and officially adult, and now I can tell him to act his age and actually have it mean something!
Speaking of my lil' bro, last friday he had his first performance with his new band, and, well, it rocked. Simple.
Queensday they'll be performing in den Helder, and I advice anybody to try ad catch their set.
Black bandit, is the bandname, go there or be elsewhere.
Well, nothing more to say. Can't anyway, it's past one o' clock and my old bones are telling me it's time to go to bed...
Ugh. Age.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
short sequence.
Yes, short sequence is "once a month"-ish.
Well, as I probably have stated before, I'm disastrous at scheduling my blogging-points. Even when I have tons and tons of time on my hands, as I have right now, I simply forget. And yes, I know that I said I had a lot to say about some movies, shamefully I have to admit that most of it, well sucked. Not the movies, but what I had to say, certainly.
Now those of you who think that what I say here sucks anyway, why are you here? The rest of you shure will appreciate me not clogging up your time with, well, suckage.
So, what did I see this week. Three DVD's and one cinema-visit. The DVD's? It, The Dreamers, and Jeux d'Enfants. The cinema? Lucky Number Slevin.
Now that last one is not possible to review, for me, without spoiling it, but I can say that you should go watch it, it was entertaining and fun. Plus, Josh Hartnett is in a towel for a good scene, and though it isn't the best body ever, there is a thing to say for the entire beggar/chooser-thing.
The other three, will, in order:
It: Yes, the Stephen King-film, based on the book of the same title. And, as usual, the book is better. The fear and apathy of the book can never, ever be really put on film, and therefore any film will lose something in the translation. But the movie is okay, I guess, well, I think it is quite a good watch, even at it's three hour length. I do tend to watch the movie right after I finish reading the book. This to dull the books' edge a bit, I think.
Nuff said about this one, you either like King, and you will like this then, or you don't, and you won't.
The Dreamers. Bernardo Bertolucci's film of morality and sexuality experienced and broadened unchecked, and ended by the intrusing of the outside world. Three teenagers, a brother and sister, twin children of a French auther and his English wife, joined by an American student in a sumptuous apartment in Paris.
Their first meeting a thing of chance, a riot at a movie-theater. The three are film-buffs and quiz each other constantly on classic films. They hit it off right away and within two nights the hapless American is in the twins' home. From then, without the intrusion of the parents, on holiday to the seaside, the limits of the three are tested, broadened, stretched and snapped.
I love this movie. Not only because I'm a bit of a film-buff myself, and would've loved to be part of such a movie-dreamers-group. And not only because I think that the twins, for all their weirdness and disquieting closeness are as far as I'm concerned very, very attractive.
But a bit of both, I guess. The period of social change, the movie is set in the 60's, and the freedom given from these social revolutions, lends the film indeed a dreamlike, detached quality, the testing and stretching of boundaries is something I myself find really imortant, forcing one to discern ones own standpoints in life and perhaps realigning them to current views.
The movie ends a bit dully, I have to say, but nonetheless is one-and-three-quarters good and about ten minuts bad, and this is a good score, in my book.
Plus, I hope to one day find a person, boy or girl, that will play the movie game with me, and allow the same reprecussions. Not that they are truly outrageous, but most people don't like a good game anymore.
Last, Jeux d'Enfants. Two children get into a game of cap-ou-pas-cap. Dare or not. They have to give each other dares, and when one succeeds, he or she gets to dare the other.
Yes, games again, and again, a movie I truly like. French, and scored on different renditions of "La vie en rose" the movie blends childlike fantasy with the truth of children. The kids grow up, leave each other, hurt each other, fall in love, marry, but not each other, ruin each other and build each other up into an open ending that denotes either a double suicide or true unending love.
As said, love this love this love this. The game progresses and ages along with them with sometimes truly disatrous consequences but they are both addicted to it and to each other, wit all the hurt an addiction can bring.
But still, to me, it is a deeply romantic movie. They are Catherine and Heathcliff. Destined for each other, and destined to break each other.
Watching these two movies back to back might have been a bad plan. Suffice it to say, had I watched Dangerous Liasions after these two I'd have not been able to trust anyone for a week, but also would've fallen in love with most people I'd meet on the street.
I can say: watch. watch both these movies, and if you do like them, or agree with me on the review at least, let me know. Most people I know don't know the films and I can't convince them to watch "a French movie" cause of the Artsy-factor, and I would love to discuss them.
Post a comment, and if you do want to talk, post an MSN-adress or something.
For now, this is it, I'll try to do more, honest, somehow I'll find a rythm.
Well, as I probably have stated before, I'm disastrous at scheduling my blogging-points. Even when I have tons and tons of time on my hands, as I have right now, I simply forget. And yes, I know that I said I had a lot to say about some movies, shamefully I have to admit that most of it, well sucked. Not the movies, but what I had to say, certainly.
Now those of you who think that what I say here sucks anyway, why are you here? The rest of you shure will appreciate me not clogging up your time with, well, suckage.
So, what did I see this week. Three DVD's and one cinema-visit. The DVD's? It, The Dreamers, and Jeux d'Enfants. The cinema? Lucky Number Slevin.
Now that last one is not possible to review, for me, without spoiling it, but I can say that you should go watch it, it was entertaining and fun. Plus, Josh Hartnett is in a towel for a good scene, and though it isn't the best body ever, there is a thing to say for the entire beggar/chooser-thing.
The other three, will, in order:
It: Yes, the Stephen King-film, based on the book of the same title. And, as usual, the book is better. The fear and apathy of the book can never, ever be really put on film, and therefore any film will lose something in the translation. But the movie is okay, I guess, well, I think it is quite a good watch, even at it's three hour length. I do tend to watch the movie right after I finish reading the book. This to dull the books' edge a bit, I think.
Nuff said about this one, you either like King, and you will like this then, or you don't, and you won't.
The Dreamers. Bernardo Bertolucci's film of morality and sexuality experienced and broadened unchecked, and ended by the intrusing of the outside world. Three teenagers, a brother and sister, twin children of a French auther and his English wife, joined by an American student in a sumptuous apartment in Paris.
Their first meeting a thing of chance, a riot at a movie-theater. The three are film-buffs and quiz each other constantly on classic films. They hit it off right away and within two nights the hapless American is in the twins' home. From then, without the intrusion of the parents, on holiday to the seaside, the limits of the three are tested, broadened, stretched and snapped.
I love this movie. Not only because I'm a bit of a film-buff myself, and would've loved to be part of such a movie-dreamers-group. And not only because I think that the twins, for all their weirdness and disquieting closeness are as far as I'm concerned very, very attractive.
But a bit of both, I guess. The period of social change, the movie is set in the 60's, and the freedom given from these social revolutions, lends the film indeed a dreamlike, detached quality, the testing and stretching of boundaries is something I myself find really imortant, forcing one to discern ones own standpoints in life and perhaps realigning them to current views.
The movie ends a bit dully, I have to say, but nonetheless is one-and-three-quarters good and about ten minuts bad, and this is a good score, in my book.
Plus, I hope to one day find a person, boy or girl, that will play the movie game with me, and allow the same reprecussions. Not that they are truly outrageous, but most people don't like a good game anymore.
Last, Jeux d'Enfants. Two children get into a game of cap-ou-pas-cap. Dare or not. They have to give each other dares, and when one succeeds, he or she gets to dare the other.
Yes, games again, and again, a movie I truly like. French, and scored on different renditions of "La vie en rose" the movie blends childlike fantasy with the truth of children. The kids grow up, leave each other, hurt each other, fall in love, marry, but not each other, ruin each other and build each other up into an open ending that denotes either a double suicide or true unending love.
As said, love this love this love this. The game progresses and ages along with them with sometimes truly disatrous consequences but they are both addicted to it and to each other, wit all the hurt an addiction can bring.
But still, to me, it is a deeply romantic movie. They are Catherine and Heathcliff. Destined for each other, and destined to break each other.
Watching these two movies back to back might have been a bad plan. Suffice it to say, had I watched Dangerous Liasions after these two I'd have not been able to trust anyone for a week, but also would've fallen in love with most people I'd meet on the street.
I can say: watch. watch both these movies, and if you do like them, or agree with me on the review at least, let me know. Most people I know don't know the films and I can't convince them to watch "a French movie" cause of the Artsy-factor, and I would love to discuss them.
Post a comment, and if you do want to talk, post an MSN-adress or something.
For now, this is it, I'll try to do more, honest, somehow I'll find a rythm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)