i went on a movie spree this weekend.
hustle and flow= 4(/5) stars
the wedding crashers= 3(/5) stars
the arisotcrats= 3(/5) stars
also, coke has a new "commercial".
remember (and, i realize some of you may not) the new seekers song - "i'd like to teach the world to sing/and furnish it with love" song? the one they used once upon a time in their commercials? the hippies surrounding the hills....
yeah, well, they've revamped it to "i'd like to teach the world to jam/and chill with it awhile"; "urban" youth on a rooftop somewhere singing/jamming... which could have great potential, but just doesn't live up to it. it's just... off. i haven't put my finger on it, yet... and i'm not saying this as a purist, which i can be. or someone who hates coke the company but has a fondness for coke the drink, which, again, i am. but as someone who is otherwise all about the cover song and thus quite disappointed.*
this was really the biggest disappointment of the experience. and i wasn't even expecting it. and then i experienced it twice.
as far as the movies themselves: i expected more from the aristocrats. (i'm not sure how i was expecting more, i just wanted more from it.) a lot less from the wedding crashers. (but it *is* a christopher walken flick... which was the appeal.) and a little bit more from hustle and flow. (or maybe, not so much more as a little bit less of the misogyny and violence.
*i may have lost 99% of my college writing, but goddamn, if my mp3s didn't survive my computer crash of 05.
hustle and flow= 4(/5) stars
the wedding crashers= 3(/5) stars
the arisotcrats= 3(/5) stars
also, coke has a new "commercial".
remember (and, i realize some of you may not) the new seekers song - "i'd like to teach the world to sing/and furnish it with love" song? the one they used once upon a time in their commercials? the hippies surrounding the hills....
yeah, well, they've revamped it to "i'd like to teach the world to jam/and chill with it awhile"; "urban" youth on a rooftop somewhere singing/jamming... which could have great potential, but just doesn't live up to it. it's just... off. i haven't put my finger on it, yet... and i'm not saying this as a purist, which i can be. or someone who hates coke the company but has a fondness for coke the drink, which, again, i am. but as someone who is otherwise all about the cover song and thus quite disappointed.*
this was really the biggest disappointment of the experience. and i wasn't even expecting it. and then i experienced it twice.
as far as the movies themselves: i expected more from the aristocrats. (i'm not sure how i was expecting more, i just wanted more from it.) a lot less from the wedding crashers. (but it *is* a christopher walken flick... which was the appeal.) and a little bit more from hustle and flow. (or maybe, not so much more as a little bit less of the misogyny and violence.
*i may have lost 99% of my college writing, but goddamn, if my mp3s didn't survive my computer crash of 05.
hi...and a question
Date: 2005-08-20 05:56 am (UTC)Re: hi...and a question
Date: 2005-08-20 09:23 am (UTC)charges are generally state to state. but i might be able to direct you if i have a firmer grasp on the question.
if it has to do with the shadiness of police officers/etc. your client may not have much hope. (this has been a recent theme at my shelter. though, not currently involving any of my clients.)
i do know that wisconsin (in appearance) tends to be more lenient in favor of the ;woman' (it should be survivor, but let's face reality, the leniency is in favor of the female depicted as victim, which makes her in need of protection) in dv-type cases. i'm pretty sure they, or at least more local jurisdictions, tend to have a "must-arrest" law, where one person HAS to be arrested in dv-type calls.
if any of this is unclear. or if it doesn't answer the question you have, email me. @ yahoo.
Re: hi...and a question
Date: 2005-08-20 05:09 pm (UTC)thanks