Wednesday, May 07, 2008

the opposite is also true.

don't bother with "beowulf" - we turned it off. well, i think curtis would have watched it through for the animation (he is a tech geek), but it was graphically violent, boring (who knew the two could go hand in hand?), vaguely cheesy, and not much better "motion caption animation" than the regular "computer animation" in shrek. and you know what? the fact that it's "literature" doesn't help it all. frankly, just cause it's an old manuscript doesn't mean it's actual literature, (keep an eye out for snarky comments from vincent .... ), it just means it's old. it may very well be interesting because of that, but c'mon. it was not even worth the 30 minutes of my life i wasted watching it. if it's on your "wanna see it" list, i heartily suggest you cross it off.

in brighter news, it's going to be a gorgeous day & the girls are off early, so sarah and i are taking them to duke gardens to hang out. i'll try to remember my camera to take pictures of all the baby birds, turtles, flowers and other glories of nature! every now and then a day is perfect - i hope this is one of them.


Vincent said...

Before you shit talk Beowulf, you might want to read it. If you know anything about Hollywood, you know that they often butcher great things and turn them cheesy. Read Beowulf before you start saying that it's not literature.

"Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon."

rachel said...

hmmm. yes. read it. indeed. any day i'll pick up a copy. i swear. :)