1. I'm increasingly not buying
They can't have it both ways - if we're increasingly sceptical of events of late, then why would we baulk at criticising one seeming piece of bollox, just because it feeds our own narrative, when we'd baulk at clear opposition bollox? If something is BS or at least implausible as presented, then there's a good chance it's bollox.
I'm in bed and across the room is a book of quotations and one quote is that when a scientist tries to influence us by his manner, then we distrust him. Same goes for journos. I've come to distrust anyone opening with journalistic patter, a spiel. I want the facts, without the padding, padding being something I've been guilty of myself.
This item [not up yet] supposedly has a CCP official saying that vaxxing the military is killing them and that they're essentially dead unless they get the antidote. Now don't get me wrong - he may have said that, after all, we did view the Event 201 Conference. It might even be true what he said. So what's my issue?
It's the way it's presented. The slick page, reeking of money, highly organised, with beautiful tonality fading to other tones, the faint image of the syringe, the whole thing smacks of money poured in. Then the video, with translation below. Yeah? Whose translation?
Then, immediately below that, a huge Donate button. In the navbar, an official, organised resistance. You have got to be kidding! It reminds me of Epoch Times, highly suspect, with all its tricky sign-up tricks. No thanks.
2. A disturbing film
Impact, last evening's film. The cast alone is quite weird. The chief bitch, the murderous wife, in real life was as bad and all sorts happened, even her home burnt down, picking up and killing hitchhikers. The supposed heroine with the winning smile and saccharine music - married, divorced, married, divorced, mar.... and so it went on. Both died of cancer, sad. The male protagonist usually plays a hard rotter, here he's the put upon innocent hardheaded tycoon.
All that notwithstanding, the writers certainly came up with a conundrum. And you know, not as farfetched as some user reviewers would have us believe IMHO.
So, a not nice business tycoon, plush residence, the works, token younger wife, loves her to bits though, beneath it all, she's just after the payout ... nothing at all farfetched there. Some reviewers say he's too old for the part, something about him playing 25 at 40. Rubbish, he was what he was - the whole thing turns on older man, trophy wife.
And natch, she has a young lover - again nothing farfetched there, I should know in my early days. Then the notion of the young heroine a motor mechanic in 1949. Why not? Hubby dies in the war, she tries to keep the garage running, doesn't know about cars in those days. Did the businessman know? Well yes, that type's a jack of all trades, it still fits.
Wife's lover trying to kill the hubby? Why not? That way? Weeeeeeelllll, maybe that was sooo klutzy, why would a bored sophisticate want to marry that? If you know, then tell me one day. That was a pathetic part.
Now, that half of the film was praised as good noir and the second as boring. Disagree. The second has the heroine keeping a lid on things, giving the escaped hubby a new life, what a gal, and her mother can cook. Perfectly sane arrangement.
She urges him to go back and clear the wife of murder, after all - he's alive, inn ee? Walks in, the stupid Plod Head immediately believes everything the murderous wife says ... these sorts of things are hard to buy - that cops can be that belligerently stoopid.
Wife eventually goes down in flames, hubby is freed, the town has a great mechanic and firefighter but what's he do? Takes her out of it to his new biz in Denver, starting the whole thing over, film ends. What an idiot. She's exactly the type not to, he has a perfectly good job as mechanic, making dosh. So - city slicker, smalltown girl - oh dear but the film ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.