The current cinema, "Glug, glug, glug" edition, part 1

No Comments

• Matt Miller says:

  December 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm

  “He is also, shud­der­ingly, some­what disabled…”
  “Shudderingly” in the sense of, “wow, that’s a really ter­rible thing to have happened to the char­ac­ter,” or in the sense of, “Come on, really, Diablo?”

• Tom Block says:

  December 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm

  My big reser­va­tion here is Patrick Wilson, who gives off all the force of a loaf of white bread. I hated “Little Children” for reas­ons too mul­ti­tudin­ous to go into here, but Wilson brought abso­lutely nada to it. I mean, N‑A-D‑A…

• Grant L says:

  December 10, 2011 at 1:38 pm

  I’ve only seen Wilson in “Insidious,” and in the first half all I could think was that either the char­ac­ter was severely under­writ­ten or that’s all they could get out of him. In the second half, when he was required to show some com­plex­ity, he seemed pretty lost. I’d wel­come any­one’s pos­it­ive exper­i­ences with Wilson so I can per­haps get past my ini­tial impres­sion that this guy has just been really lucky.

• Joel says:

  December 10, 2011 at 1:58 pm

  Wilson was good as Joe in the HBO ver­sion of Angels in America. However, “bland as white bread” is pretty much required for that character.

• That Fuzzy Bastard says:

  December 22, 2011 at 11:39 pm

  His bland­ness works really well here, though, If his char­ac­ter was a more vivid per­son, Mavis’ pur­suit would have seemed more jus­ti­fied. Having him be kind of a cipher makes her more clearly psychotic.