?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Mexico. SVU. Alexander.

News of the day:

Mexico:  I heard a terrible story on the radio this morning.  Two Mexican federal police officers, working undercover, were investigating drug pushers operating near a school; part of their surveillance involved making videotapes.  Apparently residents saw the taping and assumed this was a prelude to a kidnapping.  A mob formed and attacked the officers, beating them and ultimately killing them by burning them alive.  The worst part of the story is that this happened on live TV.  At one point a journalist actually spoke to one of the officers; the officer said "We're police, here's a number to call to verify it" . . . but nobody bothered to check out his claim until it was too late.

SVU:   Anyone out there besides me disappointed with last night's show?  The story itself was fine, but the "non-ending"????  At least when L&O: Criminal Intent decided to play games with the audience last month by filming two separate endings to a story (Nicole dies / Nicole escapes) and broadcast one version on the East Coast, the other on the West, the story did have a resolution.  Last night, though ... well why should I have to go out to nbc.com to see how a television show is going to end?  And if, like me, you don't have a computer at home, are you going to care enough to bother doing it the next day at the office?  Also, re Stabler:  with all the sturm und drang that's been going on with Elliot this season, the big "revelation" last night was certainly an anticlimax.  I'm sure everyone knew what it was going to be, and has seen it coming for weeks, but once it finally arrived, couldn't we have had a little more passion?  Maybe there'll be more -- hope so, because I haven't seen "meltdown" yet.

Alexander:  I hadn't planned to see the new Oliver Stone film until an article in Saturday's New York Times made me rethink my position.  So I've made a "pro and con" list to help me decide:

  • Pro:  (1) I enjoy historical films and historical fiction; (2) I'm interested in Alexander, and in the Alexander/Hephaestion relationship; (3) the Saturday Times article said the film doesn't gloss over the fact that Alexander was bisexual and that he and Hephaestion were lovers (unlike the unlamented Troy, which sanitized the Achilles/Patroclus relationship); (4) films and filmmakers who are willing to push the sexual envelope a little, whether with homosexual/bisexual themes, or by snapping their fingers at an NC-17 rating, should be supported (and encouraged if the work is good)
  • Con:  (1) I majored in history in college, so I know that the bigger the film and the more it deals with actual historical events and characters (epics and biopics are the worst), the more it's going to stray from reality; (2) Angelina Jolie is in this film; (3) Angela Lansbury was almost the same age as Laurence Harvey, but she convincingly played his mother in the original version of The Manchurian Candidate; AJ as Colin Farrell's mother makes me laugh; (4) OMG the accents in this film; I can barely take the dialogue in the trailers, and the film is almost 3 hours long; (5) the critics are already turning thumbs down (there's an especially savage review of Angelina Jolie's performance by Manohla Dargis in today's New York Times)

The "con" side pretty much takes the field, I'd say.  There's only one thing now that still might get me into a theatre -- Jared Leto as Hephaestion is said to be excellent.  So, we'll see.

Tomorrow will be spent with family (parents and sister) to celebrate Thanksgiving, so after I leave work tonight I'll be computer-less and offline until Friday.  That means anything I have to say in answer to the lost_in_french question "Qui est Alex?" will probably have to wait until then.

U.S. readers:  HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Everyone else:  HAPPY THURSDAY!