Pageviews past week

Saturday, November 28, 2015


I suspect that movie was never in theaters. I say this because the rating at the beginning of the film was MA. (Mature audiences only) I am not sure if that is a blessing or a curse. For this movie had quite a few plot flaws. Whether or not they were necessary in order to move the story along is reason for later debate.

            My sister once taught me of the concept known as “The willing suspension of disbelief.”  I believe that can be the excuse for why this movie wasn’t quite ready for theater realese. That being said however it wasn’t all that bad. Liam Neesion did show some god acting qualities despite not having a speaking roll. The story line did move along quite fluidly.  There were a few gaps in the pacing but all in all it wasn’t that bad.

            The cast was quite a hodgepodge of actors and characters. Cher was in the leading role and Liam Neeson was her main suspect. Dennis Quiad fills in quite nicely as the lobbyist forced to be a juror and compelled to determine the truth. John Mahhoney is the judge at the heart of this film who cant quite put it all and all together until of course the end.

            Quite an ending it was too. The courtroom explodes with thunder and all hell breaks loose. Desk(s) are thrown suspects are arrested and clich├ęs are drawn out. Oh yea the falsely accused is found innocent The guilty are arrested and the gavel is pounded as well and pounded and pounded and pounded. If you want to see how it comes down you must rent this film. It is available on my free On Demand menu. I’m sure you can find it via other means. Rent it to day however and decide the guilt or Innocence for one’s self. I give it A solid B.

Grade B

No comments:

A note from an editor!

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into this piece, especially on a Saturday morning. I can tell you definitely took good notes of everything that was going on during the event!

We still have some work to do before this piece is ready to print. Your piece has a lot of information, but it doesn’t sound like a news article. What was the point of his speech/presentation? Why was he addressing this audience? What is Vanguard? What does the company do – who does it serve? You spend a lot of time narrating (for example, how he was injured), but did not report on the purpose of the event. You can maybe mention his appearance/joking about it in a sentence or two, but do not take several paragraphs to do so. Also, I like how you mentioned where the name “Vanguard” comes from.

There are a lot of spelling errors in this piece – make sure you proof read each sentence carefully.

I know I am getting back to you a little later I hoped, and I’m sorry about that! But if you have time tonight, please go through my suggestions and try to rework your piece. You can send me what you have tonight/tomorrow morning. Please bring a copy of it to the meeting tomorrow and we will discuss it further from there.

Once again, thanks for your hard work and promptness! Remember this is a learning process, and we are all part of the Waltonian team!

Talk to you soon!

Ten Most pathetic movie stars that still have careers.

(In A - B -C Order)

1. Hayden Christensen

2. Tom Crusie

3. Kevin Costner

4. Keeanu Reeves

5. Denise Richards

6. Adam Sandler

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger

8. William Shatner

9. Sylvester Stalloan

10. John Claude Van dahm