pkeets at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 28 11:07:26 CDT 2004
>It was about transition. It was about Jimmy coming to terms with
>responsibility. This was plain in his
interaction with his ex. Of course, part of that was their economic
situation. Both were on the dole. No future, no joy.
I didn't see much of a way for him to come to terms with responsibility, but
I did get the part about no future and no joy. Do you think this was Pete's
point? He sort of drifts through the film, as if visiting with the past,
and then walks away at the end.
>miserable. I can't identify any sign in the movie that it's about Keith
>Nor can I. Jimmy had no money, Keith had more than he could spend. Jim's
>poverty is the root of his actions with his ex (sorry, can't recall her
>name as my copy is on Beta so it's been a while since I've watched it).
Could this be about spiritual poverty? And I do think Moon was always
>>I was pleasantly surprised at QUAD the movie. I, too, was expecting
>>something like TOMMY and I'm not a fan of that one.
>Right. We didn't need a Hard Day's Night from The Who.
What I wanted to see was what we finally got in 1989, which was just The Who
presenting TOMMY in all it's pathos and humor and uplifing finale. It's
just a shame it took so long to get there.
>>one for Whofilms, as MCVICAR is well-done, too, and
>Ah, you only like it cause you get to see Rog's ass.
Have you watched it?
"My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no
make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat
fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call 'women' at the Democratic
National Convention." - Ann Coulter
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
More information about the TheWho