reeling from the junk ~

[lookingland]

oh my heavens, i just overdosed watching the entire North and South miniseries.

it was every bit as bad as i thought it would be ~ and more ~ !

the first episode i was encouraged, thought it had some nice detail-work and interesting characters, but it just plunged after that into the depths of idiotic depravity (to say nothing of the amazingly absurd hairdos!) ~

i had never seen this before and had purposesly avoided it for years.

but as i am duty-bound to know the genre, i felt i had to get my boots dirty ~ and boy was i up to my shins in it tonight.

i'm not sure i can forge ahead with "book 2" ~ another six hours???

ugh ~ i think i'm gonna be ill.

and this after watching Episode III ~ ?

: o p



swayze and read at the Point
(which provided the only interest
in this overblown soap opera)

Comments

[scarlite.livejournal.com]

Maybe I shouldn't mention that I love N&S... Oh well. I grew up watching it, and reading the books in middle school... so you know. I do have to say Book III is completely worthless. Completely laughable. The only reason I made it through 2 episodes is because of James Read. I still haven't finished watching book III.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

hahahahaha ~ !

i can see the appeal ~ it's just definitely not my cup of tea. i don't like soaps and while i don't mind mild tampering with istory, full-scale overhaul just makes me roll my eyes (to say nothing of the afore-mentioned really bad hairdos). if a movie is historically inaccurate, but detail-accurate, i'm very forgiving (Glory comes to mind ~ it was meticulously done and captured the "spirit", if not the reality in every way).

North & South just rings false on both levels and that's a killer for me. i did enjoy the battle stuff and Parker Stevenson in the second one as a sharpshooter in Berdan's regiment (gotta love the green coats!) ~ but the story itself is just silly, silly, silly (and silly).

i may be too much of a literalist in some ways ~ hahahaha.

: D

[scarlite.livejournal.com]

See, I'm more of a romantic spirit so I can accept things for what they are as long as I don't think on it too deeply. It's greatly flawed, but come on, shirtless Swayze and Read make it worthwhile for me. :) I often lean on romanticized versions of movies or books or views of history as my escape. I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to movies from books, unless they are badly done (Message in a Bottle comes to mind). I don't know I can understand why some people might not like it and I'm ok with that. I like it purely as an escape. :)

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

hahahahaha ~

~ for pure cheese, definitely, i love a good sappy story myself. i guess i just expected (or hoped for) more. and i like read (not a huge fan of swayze ~ i was still more inclined toward stevenson). like i said, i enjoyed the battle stuff. it was ashton and bent and all that blah blah blah that just bored me to tears. in the last three hours or so, i was just fast-forwarding through their parts.

i'm more into the action and the family drama rather than the romance, i guess. i like a little romance, but if i'm going to watch a movie that takes place during the civil war and is ostensibly about two best friends on the opposite sides of that war, i really want that and not 12 hours of madeline weeping and moaning for orry under absurd pretexts.

i'm all for escape. i mean, i watched the bloody thing after all, didn't i?

hahahahaha ~

: D