Leave a comment

Comments 18

thornnuminous March 31 2008, 20:14:39 UTC
Callum sure does die in a lot of his roles. :-/

Reply

bluebelle789 March 31 2008, 21:23:20 UTC
Yeah. :( But usually it's because they're bad guys? Maybe he thinks that's more interesting than playing a character who is nice and lives to see another day. *sigh*

Reply

thornnuminous March 31 2008, 22:10:46 UTC
When he was younger, he said in an interview that he wasn't pretty enough to be the leading man and wasn't ugly enough to be a criminal.

Funny thing is, he plays really awful criminals, but he's really NOT ugly. :D

Reply

china_shop April 1 2008, 04:05:30 UTC
That made me laugh. I'm like, even when I've read the plot synopsis and everything, I still get surprised when it turns out he dies. Oh, Callum!

Reply


scriggle April 1 2008, 00:05:55 UTC
‘Timothy Mortensen’ was his name in a few early press reviews/releases, and even on the back of the currently available DVD jacket.

Huh. I never noticed that.

It's shame because this movie had some potential. It really needed a lead actor who could, um, act and a rewrite or two to tighten up the plot and dialogue. For a little while, I was even hopeful that Mort would only seem to be the bad guy. Alas, I was wrong. It was merely Callum working the material to make it more than what it actually was.

Off to click ticky boxes.

Reply

bluebelle789 April 1 2008, 01:23:33 UTC
It's shame because this movie had some potential. It really needed a lead actor who could, um, act

Hee! *nodsnods* It is a shame, and considering it took them so long to get the movie made too, it could have (should have?) turned out a lot better. Oh well.

Ticky! :)

Ooh thank you for adding the tags! ♥

Reply

scriggle April 1 2008, 01:31:44 UTC
Even though it's not so good, at least it has lots of Callum. *g*

You're welcome. Mal and I are on tag duty 'cause c is away this week. If you need anything for your posts just drop Mal or me a note.

Reply

bluebelle789 April 1 2008, 20:05:47 UTC
Even though it's not so good, at least it has lots of Callum

The one thing they got right. *g*

Will do! ♥

Reply


neu111 April 4 2008, 22:28:13 UTC
I agree with you and other comments that there's a visual quality to the movie (not even speaking of Callum!) and that there was ::sighs:: a potential.

Reply

bluebelle789 April 5 2008, 04:12:15 UTC
I know! So many 'ifs' with this movie, maybe handled by someone else, or not having Freddie in there at all like scriggle said, might have improved it.

Actually on second thoughts, if another director had handled it, we might not have had such good close ups of Callum. I think there was some Callum-love there... *g*

Reply


zabira April 6 2008, 05:22:25 UTC
even though it sounds like a mixed bag, you've actually made me want to watch this movie! i actually LOVE watching pool, new orleans is beautiful, and callum? well, there's no need me to explain why i think THAT might be a good thing.

it's too bad, because it actually sounds as if it has SO MANY of the ingredients of a much better film.

Reply

bluebelle789 April 7 2008, 04:30:53 UTC
Okay then: Mission accomplished! *g*

I had high hopes for this film, really I did. But... aw, Callum. *shakes head*

Reply


green_grrl April 6 2008, 06:50:25 UTC
Dammit, Callum! I've avoided it because the descriptions of Freddie's performance have uniformly said it's dire. And FP's Valley Boy interview up there didn't endear me to him at all. (I liked Poolhall Junkies! Michael Rosenbaum! And Christopher Walken! And a decent pool hustling story, shot well! Hmph.)

Reply

bluebelle789 April 7 2008, 04:36:31 UTC
Indeed. I was naive and went ahead without knowing much about FPJ's performance beforehand. If I'd known, I'd probably have held back on it too. *nods*

Reply


Leave a comment

Up