Cloudy Morning, Superhero Fashion and Audrey Rose
A cloudy Monday on a Tuesday has me a bit down. Also going to work after sleeping late for three days has something to do with it as well.
Meantime – spent the weekend not doing chores – yeah the place is a mess but it was a series of beautiful days and the mess isn’t going away soon so the heck with it.
Went to the Metropolitan Museum of art on Sunday – and saw the weird superhero thing they have – it’s a very odd exhibit with no real damn sense to it other than looking a) some costumes used in various super hero movies – The original superman, Batman Returns (not praise Jesus the Batman and Robin Batman suit which had nipples- I remember a making of feature that had the director and the art guy giggling and noting with pride because they had put nipples on the bat suit. True a small thing in the utter crapfest that was that film but indicative of the mindset of the director).
Anyway – along with the various suits – the exhibit featured version and comments on the suits by noted and not so noted haute couture fashion designers – which were probably very expensive to secure for the exhibit and were of vast interest to – well I don’t know, surely not the folks there to see the exhibit most of whom sprinted to the end once they saw the movie costumes – while us geeks were brought up short at the end of the exhibit which had – behind glass – copies of things like Detective Comics 23 (1st Batman) The First Superman, the First Hulk, issue 51 of the Fantastic Four – which I remember reading as a child (Ben turns back into the thing to save Reed Richards from the Negative Zone – Reed smart in so many ways really needed a childlock on the entrance to the Negative zone – he kept getting in trouble) and the like – there were also and these days I begin to suspect this is the reason for these exhibits – special books, pictures and junk to buy.
Don’t bother.
Something else not to bother with is the move – shown on Monstervison for reasons unknown – Audrey Rose. The film’s story is that a little girl, the child of an very upscale Manhattan couple (the film was shot in 1977 so Yuppie isn’t the right word) starts to have nightmares – and then an unbald Anthony Hopkins shows up and claims that this child (name of Ivy) is having nightmares because she is really the reincarnation of his daughter Audrey Rose.
Fortunately I didn’t see the whole film – we cut in when Hopkins had taken the girl and was then arrested for kidnapping. The reason I say fortunate was that given the level of stupid found in the last part of the film, I’d might have broken the Enemy Bellow’s very expensive TV because I was throwing things at the screen.
The last 1/3 or so of the film has the trial of the Hopkins character for kidnapping. His defense (and boy would he have to search for a lawyer to do this) is to claim that Audrey Rose’s soul has reincarted into the body of Ivy and therefore he is her father and from that somehow it was not a kidnapping.
While granted it was Hollywood – shot like a made for TV movie by the way – even so there are some huge gaping flaws in the logic here – allow me to explain:
1) The law does not give a damn what the motives of the person doing the kidnapping are. The law never gives a shit because motives are not, in the end, important. You don’t have to prove motive in a murder case – granted it can help, but you don’t have to and here it’s even less necessary – a person could actually believe that a small child is the son of the devil and take it away from its parents because he’s trying to save the world that won’t make him any less guilty of kidnapping .
The law is not in the business of proving the existence or non existence of reincarnation either.
Actually one of the silliest parts of the film was where a Hindu holy man testifies about reincarnation during the trial – the look on the judge’s face as he does so is pricelessly funny (I’m not sure if the actor was holding the testimony in contempt or was musing on ways to kill his agent). Also our Hindi guy goes on and on about how for the west death is the end and is hated and feared for it while in the east it’s just a part of the soul’s journey done without pointing out that the major religion of the west Christianity in its various forms promises a much better life after death.
The last scene consists of a regression hypnosis and then what felt like 15 minutes of the damn child shrieking at a pitch that could shatter glass (the same pitch Steven Spielberg uses in his films when a girl is in trouble it’s one of the 3 or 4 most annoying sounds ever) and then dying as the hypnotist brings her back to the time of the accident. And this is portrayed as a happy ending. “she is at peace” Hopkins says as her mother looks on.
Right. Guys you just went through 2 hours of talking about reincarnation - which if you believe in such things – the kids soul is currently looking for a new home. Right? Or do only special souls who are cut off in , well that would work here as well. The film is brain wise hopelessly muddled.
Speaking of hopelessly muddled – I’m not looking forward to the remake of The Andromeda Strain. Chrition has a lot of faults as a writer – and as person to read these days but at least he did not go about burdening the Andromeda Stain with the kind of gibberish – including a love story that the A&E version is going to give us. The movie of the Andromeda Strain is one of the few films you will ever see where scientists are actually acting like scientists and doing science – including f mind numbing tedium.
Well that’s all for now
Peace Love Objection your honor!
Meantime – spent the weekend not doing chores – yeah the place is a mess but it was a series of beautiful days and the mess isn’t going away soon so the heck with it.
Went to the Metropolitan Museum of art on Sunday – and saw the weird superhero thing they have – it’s a very odd exhibit with no real damn sense to it other than looking a) some costumes used in various super hero movies – The original superman, Batman Returns (not praise Jesus the Batman and Robin Batman suit which had nipples- I remember a making of feature that had the director and the art guy giggling and noting with pride because they had put nipples on the bat suit. True a small thing in the utter crapfest that was that film but indicative of the mindset of the director).
Anyway – along with the various suits – the exhibit featured version and comments on the suits by noted and not so noted haute couture fashion designers – which were probably very expensive to secure for the exhibit and were of vast interest to – well I don’t know, surely not the folks there to see the exhibit most of whom sprinted to the end once they saw the movie costumes – while us geeks were brought up short at the end of the exhibit which had – behind glass – copies of things like Detective Comics 23 (1st Batman) The First Superman, the First Hulk, issue 51 of the Fantastic Four – which I remember reading as a child (Ben turns back into the thing to save Reed Richards from the Negative Zone – Reed smart in so many ways really needed a childlock on the entrance to the Negative zone – he kept getting in trouble) and the like – there were also and these days I begin to suspect this is the reason for these exhibits – special books, pictures and junk to buy.
Don’t bother.
Something else not to bother with is the move – shown on Monstervison for reasons unknown – Audrey Rose. The film’s story is that a little girl, the child of an very upscale Manhattan couple (the film was shot in 1977 so Yuppie isn’t the right word) starts to have nightmares – and then an unbald Anthony Hopkins shows up and claims that this child (name of Ivy) is having nightmares because she is really the reincarnation of his daughter Audrey Rose.
Fortunately I didn’t see the whole film – we cut in when Hopkins had taken the girl and was then arrested for kidnapping. The reason I say fortunate was that given the level of stupid found in the last part of the film, I’d might have broken the Enemy Bellow’s very expensive TV because I was throwing things at the screen.
The last 1/3 or so of the film has the trial of the Hopkins character for kidnapping. His defense (and boy would he have to search for a lawyer to do this) is to claim that Audrey Rose’s soul has reincarted into the body of Ivy and therefore he is her father and from that somehow it was not a kidnapping.
While granted it was Hollywood – shot like a made for TV movie by the way – even so there are some huge gaping flaws in the logic here – allow me to explain:
1) The law does not give a damn what the motives of the person doing the kidnapping are. The law never gives a shit because motives are not, in the end, important. You don’t have to prove motive in a murder case – granted it can help, but you don’t have to and here it’s even less necessary – a person could actually believe that a small child is the son of the devil and take it away from its parents because he’s trying to save the world that won’t make him any less guilty of kidnapping .
The law is not in the business of proving the existence or non existence of reincarnation either.
Actually one of the silliest parts of the film was where a Hindu holy man testifies about reincarnation during the trial – the look on the judge’s face as he does so is pricelessly funny (I’m not sure if the actor was holding the testimony in contempt or was musing on ways to kill his agent). Also our Hindi guy goes on and on about how for the west death is the end and is hated and feared for it while in the east it’s just a part of the soul’s journey done without pointing out that the major religion of the west Christianity in its various forms promises a much better life after death.
The last scene consists of a regression hypnosis and then what felt like 15 minutes of the damn child shrieking at a pitch that could shatter glass (the same pitch Steven Spielberg uses in his films when a girl is in trouble it’s one of the 3 or 4 most annoying sounds ever) and then dying as the hypnotist brings her back to the time of the accident. And this is portrayed as a happy ending. “she is at peace” Hopkins says as her mother looks on.
Right. Guys you just went through 2 hours of talking about reincarnation - which if you believe in such things – the kids soul is currently looking for a new home. Right? Or do only special souls who are cut off in , well that would work here as well. The film is brain wise hopelessly muddled.
Speaking of hopelessly muddled – I’m not looking forward to the remake of The Andromeda Strain. Chrition has a lot of faults as a writer – and as person to read these days but at least he did not go about burdening the Andromeda Stain with the kind of gibberish – including a love story that the A&E version is going to give us. The movie of the Andromeda Strain is one of the few films you will ever see where scientists are actually acting like scientists and doing science – including f mind numbing tedium.
Well that’s all for now
Peace Love Objection your honor!
posted by Unknown at 12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home