gryffindorseeker's imagination journal.

let's play "guess what movie roger ebert is reviewing!"

Should a woman fall in love with a man because he desires her so much? Men seem to think so. It's not about the woman, it's about the man's desire. [...] [At its core, this movie is] about two good-looking kids who want each other so much because they want each other so much. Sometimes that's all it's about, isn't it? They're in love with being in love.

while you mull it over, watch this video of suburban youths hurling compliments at pedestrians:



that was dickishly charming. okay, ready to hear the title of the mystery movie?

twilight. but roger does concede that the movie is "lush and beautiful" and well-cast, and that robert pattinson "is not unaware of how handsome he is."

it's official: everyone has jumped on the "r.pattz is smexy" bandwagon except me.

i know i rag on twilight a lot and i genuinely don't want to offend anyone, what with its small and generally dispassionate fan base,* but this franchise is EVERYWHERE and it's driving me CRAZY. maybe i love to hate twilight as much as bella & edward love to love each other, but roger's first quote sums up what i don't like about the story. that and its racist portrayl of native americans. (to be fair, twilight does better than pocahontas. have i ranted about how disney brainwashes kids with its racist and misogynistic agendas, in addition to taking all of the cool violence out the films based on fairy tales and all of the fact out of those based upon history?)

in other news, we gryffies will probably be pushed further back because i won't even be able to begin writing it until mid to late december. i know i suck and that this post is just full of happy thoughts, but i presume you'd all prefer honesty to false promises. also, i'm having a rare "i hate the world" sort of day. later, biznitches.

*tee hee, that's meiosis!†
†and that's sarcasm!‡
‡which is original!§
§now i'm just being obnoxious.‖
‖shame on you if you didn't catch the dr. horrible reference.