Unlikely Celeb Sightings 1

If this is what unemployed aka bum people feel, I already feel it. Well, I'm technically not employable since I haven't got a sedula or residence certificate, or NBI clearance--though I could easily get one--and I'm still 19--as if age can prevent me from joining the working force. Kids as young as five work.

Anyway, while waiting for summer practicum to commence--to that glorious place at the northernmost part of the Philippines--YES! BATANES!--I'm spending my days between alternating with my youngest brother in washing the dishes and doing chores like frying cooking stuff--and either watching the TV screen or the laptop screen. I alternate to avoid dying of boredom.

Well, now that I have yet to buy the ultimate remedy to boredom--a supersampler!--I've found another past time. I think I'm done, for the mean time, with my Audrey Hepburn movie marathons. What past time, you ask?

Watching movies and spotting who's-that-not-so-famous-actor-in-that-movie-pero-who-is-very-famous-now. It's like what Seth Rogen and his buddies in Knocked Up did--without the nudity and bong, of course.

So far, my movie watchful eye has spotted--with the aid of Google/Wikipedia articles--5 famous stars in not-so famous or even recognizable roles. Some don't even have a name or lines to go with their "character." Well, I guess everybody has a low point in movies--except for Sean Penn and Edward Norton, who as always starred in politically/socially/culturally-relevant, award-winning or at least avant-garde movies.

These five sightings are:

1) Jennifer Morrison in Mr. and Mrs. Smith as "Jade." Jade who? Morrison seemed to have traded her white Plainsboro Teaching Hospital-resident-doctor coat and stethoscope for black, leather duds and laptops--playing one of the plain-looking I-Temp girls of Angelina Jolie. She had a few scenes with Ange the Great but only one wherein she actually spoke. Ange asked her, "What're you guys doing in this room?" and she answered, "(blah blah blah) . . . research, background on the target." Then, Ange aka Jane tells her, "You may go. This room is wrapped up." And that ends Morrison's dialogue. In the whole movie. (Had to watch it more than thrice--and paused it around a few more times--just to see where was this "Jade." Her beauty and stunningness seemed to fade, or disappear, sans the doctor's coat. Now I know why doctors look hot. Or maybe  I do.

Add caption

2) Zooey Deschanel in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Yes, she was there and I only found out when the credits started rolling. Her name came out of nowhere. I had to watch the film over and over again trying to spot her. But, no. I had to check Google who she was in the movie exactly. And even then--when I had the name--I wasn't sure if it was really her. Come on, that Robert Ford's girlfriend does not look like Zooey. In fact--and I say this with confidence--she's very un-Zooey-ish in that movie.

Add caption

3) John Cho (as Harold in Harold and Kumar 1 & 2) in American Beauty. No, not American Pie but American Beauty. And his "character's" name: Sale House Guy #1. Goes to show how unimportant the role is. Anybody could be that guy. He just walks in this house--with his supposed girlfriend--which Annette Bening was desperately trying to sell, looks around and stares at Annette. He didn't even had a line.

Add caption

4) Scarlett Johansson in Home Alone 3. I first thought McCaulay Culkin was in this one--like the other Home Alone movies that I purposely skipped on--but I was pleasantly surprised, after watching the film, that it starred Alex D. Linz as the chickenpox infected Alex. Anyway, back to Miss Johansson. Well, I expected--since it was Home Alone Three already--a grown lady (maybe as policewoman or agent) to walk in and look a lot like Scarlett now. But, no. I was half into the movie when I remembered what the Wikipedia article said her name was in the movie. Molly Pruitt. Shit, she's the older sister of Alex. But not old as I expected. For all I know she's around fifteen--or younger. In fairness to her, she had actual lines. One of which was, "Excuse me, the 'it' you're referring to is my little brother." Yea! Attagirl.

Add caption

5) Olivia Wilde in Girl Next Door. Girl Next what? I know, it's one of those predictable and sleazy American highschool/teen flicks. But a much younger Dr. Thirteen was very much unrecognizable in this movie for the simple fact that she was blond. (Or was she a real blonde?) Few shots of her passed unnoticed then I saw her smile directly at the camera. And that's when I had to freeze frame a certain shot of her--smiling, with her friends (in the first part of the movie)--just to convince myself she was in that movie. Well, according to Wikipedia, her character's name's Kellie but I have watched the movie and don't remember her having any lines at all. I don't even remember a scene of hers with any of the lead characters.

Add caption

See? This is a fun time-consuming pasttime, the result/s of which only adds up to the immensely nonsensical trivia I have, stuck in my brain, waiting to be put to good use--like bragging? Ha ha.

Stay tuned.

Social Networking Sites ANALYZED!

NOTE: A mirror entry is posted in my Multiply account.

Friendster. The social networking site that started it all. I can't say much for this uh, site, because I've "discovered" (used, actually) it relatively recently--third year college, to be exact--and my best friend Irish even made my account. I was that . . . uninterested. :)

Maybe because I had Multiply first. And now, I rarely open my Friendster account--once a week can be considered a rare occurrence. My indifference towards my Friendster account is manifested by the simple 5-character password I have for it. Even you can guess it under 10 tries. (Wanna try? Ha ha)

The verdict: If you have many technologically-challenged friends--or just want to have 400+ people to call "friends"--and stay connected with them but not uh, committed, Friendster is the one for you.

Multiply. I came upon this social network site--my very first--because I wanted an avenue for my blogs--some are nonsensical while some are, well, relevant. I had them on Blogger--under sariefa.blogspot.com--but I figured no one was reading them, and I think I need people's feedbacks to get better at blogging. (You be the judge if I got better :D) And also my blockmates (those who remained after a bunch left. hehe) had Multiply accounts since birth--Ha ha--and I figured if we had to bridge the gap--kasi nga the ones who remained in Area Studies weren't that close--Multiply was one way of doing it. And I guess I was right. :)

The verdict: If you're one thought-ful (meaning: marami kang thoughts Hahaha) individual and you want to (and don't mind to) share it to the world, and you have gazillions of pictures and want to people to comment on them, Multiply is your thang. Ha ha

Facebook. If I remember correctly, it was Teppie who invited me to create a Facebook account--whose layout was hideous then. (Anyone remember the Facebook Wall before? Ang pangit sobraaaa.) Well, between the current layout and the one that came before it, I liked the previous one. But I guess Facebook was looking to develop their "create-a-quiz" application/s.

Anyway, I used my Facebook mostly for stalking purposes, at first. Multiply has this "viewed by" option--just like Friendster (but even that can be turned off)--which makes it non-stalker friendly. But tada! Facebook has no "viewed by" option whatsoever. And what I like about it more is that whenever a friend--the one you're stalking, for example--gets "tagged" anywhere within Facebook you're allowed to see it. See, stalker-friendly?

The verdict: If you don't mind--and actually like--killing time answering "which (whatever TVshow/TV show character/cartoon character/singer/band/band member/president/era/douche-bag/film/film character here) are you?" quizzes, and playing "role-playing games" for pets, poker, mafias and even farmers, and commenting on other people's results, this is it! Ha ha

Tagged. I can't remember how in the world did I make a Tagged account. All I can remember is that I had three friends--Raizel, Harold and uh, I forgot the last one. Hehe. I am indiferrent to this account to the point that I don't even have a profile picture. Even a fake one of some artist I like--wala. I also forgot which password I used. I have found no use/no sense in continuing to open--have I opened it more than once?--this account. I don't even care that it exists. I can waste no time in deleting it. Ha ha

The verdict: It's old and badly needs reformatting. Hey, did Tagged developers forgot that even the most successful account-making sites re-layout, re-format to keep Netizens clicking. (Ex: Yahoo Mail to Yahoo Mail Beta, Friendster increased the number of allowable albums and pictures, Multiply now has the AutoUploader feature, Facebook constantly changes its layout for more user-friendly viewing/using, and so on.)

Plurk. Like with Facebook, it is Teppie who constantly--before--sends me email invitations to join yet another social networking site. This time it involves karma points, "says" "shares" and other verb that can replace the linking verb "is" in the sentence: Jo Ann is... The more frequent one posts a "plurk" or a status, the higher the karma points. Right?

I have found no urge to create a Plurk account because:

1) I think it's too much stalker-ish;

2) It's tedious--I have to go online everyday (which I actually do, but I'd rather spend it Googling whatever and whoever or downloading music);

3) I think I'd have less "contacts" who would follow and reply to my plurks; and

4) I think I have no--or low, at best--creativity to think of reply-able, interesting-enough plurks.

The verdict: This is for people who are always online and does not mind sharing their stuff--thoughts, actions and feelings--to the world every second something comes up! :)

Twitter. I remember Ma'am Doti Jose saying something in class about the high-end and poor side of things. (Kung mayaman ka, you call it allergies. Kapag mahirap, galis--or worse. Kapag mayaman liberated--or maybe, promiscuous. Kapag mahirap, pokpok. And so on..) And I say this with no intent to offend whatsoever, pero I think Plurk is for the masang Pinoy--or "common tao"--while Twitter is for the more sosyal beings, the high-ups in the Filipino social ladder.

I first heard of Twitter just this March lang yata. I read Paolo Lorenzana's article on Supreme in The Philippine Star about Georgina Wilson being addicted to Twitter. From then on, I Google-d. Ha ha. I learned that Wilson is like our toned-down, more intelligent Lindsay Lohan--I only use her as a point of reference because of her Twittering habits. Some well-known Twitters are Twiterring couple Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, whose tweets on Susan Boyle jumpstarted her popularity online, John Mayer--who, by the way, Twitters everything daw, and even Catt Sadler from E! Daily Ten.

The verdict: You have to be famous or interesting to deliriously creative (tweets are like, Facebook status-es on Exra Joss Haha) for people to constantly "follow" your tweets.

This Blog is 63% Woman!

According to GenderAnalyzer:


Results

We think http://joannlovessaturdays.blogspot.com/ is written by a woman (63%).

Reality is stranger than fiction

Ted Failon's wife is in the ICU for a bullet wound on her temple, after purportedly committing "suicide" but some evidence suggest otherwise. Yes, TV Patrol's forever-anchorman best known for his crime-spotter program Hoy! Gising!--it was this show that started it all before Imbestigador and uh, XXX came along--is a suspect, along with his maids.

My friends (and co-practicumers) and I discussed the implications, possiblities and beneath-the-surface-analysis of the whole thing. All of us agreed it was unlikely suicide, and financial difficulties is definetely not the reason for it. Because, Ken pointed out, Ted himself said, "Kung pera lang 'yan, kikitain ko 'yan." We are all sure, based on haka-haka, of course, since we're not part of any investigating team whatsover and that what we know are based on what is shown on the TV--controlled information, maybe?

It is, for Vic and me, highly-likely that Ted may have tried to kill his wife, and failed. Or tried to shoot her and succeeded. Why? 1) He was the one who found her, after he came from his DZMM radio show; 2) They (Ted and his wife) had a fight that morning when she arrived from somewhere giving him motive; 3) The gun used was his; 4) The maids inadvertently daw cleaned everything up--the mess she made in the bathroom--after Ted rushed his wife to the hospital. Ted may have asked the maids to clean up. Or he may not.

Further, Ken thought that--whoever shot the wife, the maids or Ted--it was for protection. For her, "Hindi lang sarili niya ang pinoprotektahan ni Ted," which led us to the next question: Ano ang pinoprotektahan niya?

We all agreed it was some sort of romantic in nature. Not the good-romantic way but the one that involves lies-deception-lovers. The wife, we all agreed, was the one who had a lover because she was guilty in her suicide letter, if it was truly hers. And that it was her who did not spend the night. Not Ted. And, their daughter arriving from Cebu went straight to Camp Karingal (where Ted was waiting to be allowed to leave after making his statement--along with his maids) and not the hospital where the wife/mother was fighting for her life. Ken said, this was a show of allegiance. And since daughters--or even sons--are expected to be close to the mother (that one would rush to her bedside instead of going to a military camp where the suspect-father was) by natural means--the wonders of biology--this implicates something. That there is a reason why the daughter rushed to Ted, and not the mom. Maybe this has something to do with the wife's supposed adultery. Hmm.

This looks like a plot directly coming out from some freaky and boring detective novel ala Richard North Patterson or some psyched, worked-up narration of the workings of the mind ala Chuck Palahniuk. But it is not. This is real life. A woman with a bullet wound (am not sure if the bullet is still in her head) is, as Pinoys say it fifty-fifty, lying on some hospital fighting for her life--or maybe she isn't, maybe she's getting ready to die--after being shot--either by herself, by her maids, her husband Ted or maybe somebody else--in her daughter's bathroom. Add to that (some may find it) intriguing plot is Ted's famous anchorman status.

In the midst of all the ruckus, doubts, questions and people's-very-own-musings (like what we had), lies the age-old, million dollar question: Was it really suicide? What really happened that morning in the Failon residence in Tiera Pura?

I wish we had E! True Hollywood Stories to answer these questions, which I sincerely hope would not go unanswered.

Audrey Hepburn Review Series Part 3

My ever-brilliant mother correctly observed, one summer, that me and my siblings were wasting away our time watching crappy movies like... So to sort of lead us to the right direction (read: movies that made sense, to say the least) without literally telling us to what to watch, she bought this Audrey Hepburn movie collection. My siblings refused to be fooled. I did not. I was as curious as a moth to a flame. For some reason I cannot recall, I watched Charade first. And the rest is... well, you'll read about it here, here and here.


Love in the Afternoon. I skipped a couple of Audrey Hepburn movies in the timeline just because they seemed boring. Or maybe, they were just too serious for summer viewing. This 1957 movie follows Roman Holiday and Sabrina in the black-and-white category. For me, its plot (a detective daughter saves a "gigolo"-if you may-from the wrath of a cheated-on husband and falls in love with him as the story goes on) is below average, boring and predictable. It stars a relatively-unknown-today Gary Cooper opposite Hepburn, who is still young (and it shows) in this movie, and Maurice Chevalier as the detective-father.

There are two things I semi-loved in the movie: 1) Audrey shows some cello-playing moves. Another talent up her arsenal. 2) It's funny in a not-so-funny way. I liked the scene where the drunken Frank and the gypsies were passing drinks (Frank fills their glasses) on a busyboy across the room while they were playing, and yet they continued playing.

Kissing under a piano chair.

For me the movie is neither good nor bad. I don't feel hate or love, just semi-love or semi-hate--lukewarm.

How to Steal A Million. Again, I skipped the chronological order and three Audrey movies (three from the ones we have at home) when I chose to watch this 1966 film. Well, it intrigued me because a screencap from this movie was the featured scene of the DVD collection. Gets?

Good poster.

PETER O'TOOLE IS THE BEST AUDREY HEPBURN LEADING MAN EVER! I haven't watched half of her movies but for now, this is my judgment. He's "the best" for Audrey because: 1) They're of the same age. Or at least, appears to be. 2) He has the boyish charm I find perfectly appropriate for Audrey's classic one. 3) He acts so effortlessly with Audrey (I have yet to watch a film of his--but I will.) 4) He is simply, the boy-the-next-door surrounded by all fatherly-looking-and-acting gentlemen of his time. In Pinoyspeak, sila ang tambalan ng taon!

The adorable Peter O'Toole

Aside from obviously-loving Peter O'Toole, I loved: 1) The movie's plot, that it revolves around art--a forger amongst museums, auctions and authenticity. 2) The cast were all entertaining and performed their roles to a T. Audrey as Nicole Bonnet, O'Toole as Simon Dermott and special mention goes to Hugh Griffith as Charles Bonnet.

Peter O'Toole + Audrey Hepburn: I wonder what their modern portmanteau  be.

Audrey Hepburn Review Series Part 2

My ever-brilliant mother correctly observed, one summer, that me and my siblings were wasting away our time watching crappy movies like... So to sort of lead us to the right direction (read: movies that made sense, to say the least) without literally telling us to what to watch, she bought this Audrey Hepburn movie collection. My siblings refused to be fooled. I did not. I was as curious as a moth to a flame. For some reason I cannot recall, I watched Charade first. And the rest is... well, you'll read about it here, here and here.


I decided that these movies were the next in my Watch Audrey Hepburn Movies Phase because they were her first three movies in Hollywood, or at least the ones that made her famous.

Roman Holiday. This 1953 movie won for Audrey Hepburn her first Academy Award, Golden Globe and BAFTA Award for Best British Actress (Sabi na nga ba, Brits are better than Americans, in all aspects!), and a bunch of nominations for co-stars Gregory Peck and Eddie Albert.

Next to Breakfast I think this is her most famous movie.

I love this movie because: 1) Gregory Peck (as Joe Bradley) is, so far, the only 'ka-age group' of Audrey in terms of leading men. Yes, I am very particular with age. Cary Grant, who was supposed to play the part played by Peck but turned it down due to the age (aha!), played opposite her in Charade. That for me, made me feel that the movie was quite right. Haha, ageist.

2) Eddie Albert as Joe's photographer friend Irving Radovich was simply great, in the supporting actor sort of way. He reminds me of Baron Geisler and someone else I could not remember. Basta, simply put, magaling.

3) Nice ending. (SPOILER ALERT!) Princess Ann (or Anya) not ending up with journalist-writer Joe was a nice touch, and, I believe, a unique ending in those days when romantic films feature lovers who always end up with each other no matter what. Again, Princess Ann just accepts the power and responsibility she was given as a princess of some unnamed European country, and that "hooking up" with Bradley was a not-so-good idea.

4) Audrey was as usual refreshing. She even had her hair cut for the movie.

I disliked it--take note: not hate ha--because: 1) The movie's plot is much like.. the First Daughter (starring Katie Holmes) and Chasing Liberty (starring Mandy Moore) and yet, it won a Globe Globe and an Oscar for Hepburn as Best Actress. Hmm. Fine, it was shown before those two movies. Points for creativity.

But nonetheless, I liked the movie much more because of the ending. :) The movie's message to all those romantic movies of their time (or at least from my POV): Love stories need not end happily ever after for them to be called love stories.

Sabrina. This 1954 movie may not have won a Best Actress for Audrey, though she was nominated for an Academy Award and a Golden Globe (Edith Head won for Best Costume Design), but it sure solidified, or built up, her role as the premiere leading lady of her time. Starring opposite, with the same billing of course, a realllly old Humphrey Bogart (as Linus Larrabee) and a much-younger looking William Holden (as David Larrabee). (Note: I realized, watching this movie, that William Holden is not that old as I perceived him to be in Paris When It Sizzles. Bogart is the epitome of old. Hahaha)

Bogart + Hepburn: SUPER May-December  Love Affair

I loved it because: 1) Audrey is in her usual lovable self. :) 2) William Holden is funny and effective as the happy-go-lucky younger Larrabee (a funny name for an affluent family, I think). And so far, having watched two movies starring him, I like him. Like Audrey, I guess he's growing on me. Hahaha

Before the Jonases and the Hemsworths, there were the Larrabee Brothers.

3) The story, though common nowadays, is well-written and is cohesive--me speaking in my best mediocre scriptwriter self.

I hated it because: 1) Humphrey Bogart is sooo old. Hindi sila bagay ni Audrey. Maybe that's why there are a very few "romantic" scenes between him and Audrey, and only a couple of kissing scene, by my unofficial count. (Sana Cary Grant did not have "conflict of schedule" para siya na lang ang nag-play ng role. Yes he's old but he's a lot less older.)

Funny Face. I was supposed to watch Audrey's 1955 film War and Peace (because I was watching her films chronologically) but I decided it was--or seemed--too serious then, so I watched her 1957 film Funny Face instead. At hindi naman ako nagkamali. (I wasn't wrong.)

A colorful movie.

I loved the movie because: 1) It was colorful. Literally. Roman Holiday and Sabrina were in black-and-white, so a colored movie was pleasing and refreshing to see the day I watched all three films. Not only was it literally colored, it was also colored in the sense that the dresses and the set--and practically everything--was in vibrant colors, true to the "magazine office" setting of the story.
 

2) It is a f*cking musical! A real musical ha. For me, Funny Face is a cross between High School Musical (with more flair) or Chicago (with less flair ha). Basta, okay! The songs and the dance numbers were great and practiced, and more importantly, entertaining.

3) Fred Astaire is the perfect singing and dancing and acting leading man! Grabe! I loved his voice, the way he danced (which had a comic flair to it).

Ms. Hepburn having (too much) fun.

4) Kay Thompson as editor of Quality magazine Maggie Prescott is the best, like Astaire. She's even a better singer (in their song and dance number together) than Audrey. She's good in the best-supporting-actress way but did not let Audrey Hepburn outshine her.

5) Director Stanley Donen (director of Charade and Two for the Road) did a good job in directing and choreographing the dances of the film. His films--aside from William Holden films--are now on my to-watch list.

Funny Face is, for me, High School Musical (or Chicago), Devil Wears Prada and A Good Year all rolled into one, and throw in an Adrien Brody (The Pianist) to provide the singing and dancing leading man. It was that good.

Audrey Hepburn Review Series Part 1

My ever-brilliant mother correctly observed, one summer, that me and my siblings were wasting away our time watching crappy movies like... So to sort of lead us to the right direction (read: movies that made sense, to say the least) without literally telling us to what to watch, she bought this Audrey Hepburn movie collection. My siblings refused to be fooled. I did not. I was as curious as a moth to a flame. For some reason I cannot recall, I watched Charade first. And the rest is... well, you'll read about it here, here and here.



Breakfast at Tiffany's. When you say "Audrey Hepburn" it automatically relates to this movie. This is like her one-time big-time thing, which was, in her case, did not turn out to be one-time big time. Too many one-time-big-times, I guess. Her portrayal of Holly Golightly is the most talked-about, even up to now.

Well, I don't know how to judge or criticize films made during those times, that era. Should I be as critical as I am of movies today? Or should I be er, nice since they haven't had the technology and maybe, technical skills, in making movies (as we do now, I suppose)?

Pero sige, I'll be..nicer. The 1961 movie's plot is somewhat shallow compared to.. let's say, Priceless which starred another Audrey (Audrey Tatou opposite Gad Elmaleh). But then again, I have think of the fact that things that appear to be common sense (like the organizational chart and car bearings, perhaps, by Alfred Sloan Jr., or the assembly line by Henry Ford) like the movie's plot need to be invented or thought of in order for an improvement to happen. (In Tagalog, Pa'no ka mag-iimprove kung walang ii-improve? Right?)

It's an okay movie if you're into kissing in the rain, cats, and, uh, high fashion. (I feel like I'm watching 27 Dresses [though I haven't watched it], sa dami ng dress ni Audrey Hepburn.) Also, its a film adaptation of the novella by the same by Truman Capote. (Ah, so he is a writer.) One thing I loved about the movie is its OST (May OST na ba dati?) especially the song "Moon River." Hepburn is as good a singer as an actress. (Oops, almost forgot to mention that George Peppard co-stars. :) )

What's not romantic in kissing in the rain in black and white? None.

Charade. A relatively older (and it shows in this 1963 film) Cary Grant is paired with a fresh (Hahaha) and much younger looking Audrey Hepburn. I feel like he's her uncle or something. But having conditioned my mind that this is just like um, Brad Pitt being paired with Anne Hathaway (Angelina Jolie despite being younger than Brad in theory--hehe--looks mature but not old.) or Richard Gere and Julia Roberts (in Pretty Woman) perhaps.

I liked this movie better than I did Breakfast. According to Wikipedia (which is a not-so credible but is always available source of quick info), it "spans three genres: suspense thriller, romance, comedy" and is "the best Hitchcock movie that Hitchcock ever made". So, I guess, I picked right when I chose to watch this one first, amongst the many Audrey Hepburn movies we have at home.

Reggie (Audrey) and her old man. Literally.

I liked the witty jokes used in the movie. Especially the last one, in the last scene, where Reggie (Audrey Hepburn) says something like "I love you Peter, Adam, Alex, Brian" to Cary Grant's multi-named character, and as she said that, screencaps from the movie showing Grant while he was using the said names. For me, that's a bright idea for an old movie. Kudos to Director Stanley Donen and scriptwriter Peter Stone. Of course, to Mr Grant and Ms Hepburn, and Walther Matthau as Carson Dyle aka Hamilton Bartholomew.


Paris When It Sizzles. In this 1964 film, a screenwriter takes centerstage. Scriptwriter Richard Benson (William Holden) has two days to write a script (The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower) for Alexander Meyerheim (Noel Coward) which he should have done 19 weeks ago. Enter typist Gabrielle Simpson (Hepburn). And, yes, as the cliche goes, they fall in love while working together, creating a love story which mimics their own.

A writer and typist love story

Clever jokes, film cliches and good on-screen chemistry makes this film click, for me, at least. I like William Holden as an actor. He is, in filmspeak, very effective. But again, I am bothered by the age difference between Hepburn and Holden (Or Holden just looks old. Hehe). Pero sige, let's see this as Billy Bob Thornton and Angelina Jolie, when they together, but waayyyyy better. Hahaha

Holden and Hepburn in one of their onscreen kisses.

Again, nice movie.

Overall: Audrey Hepburn is growing on me with every movie that I watch.

-----------------------------------------


PS: Curiously, there is no article on Audrey Hepburn in the 1994 Britannica Encyclopaedia (which we have at home) when I looked her up. But there are articles for Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant. Goes to show how old they are and how outdated our Encyclopaedia is.

Movie What-Ifs

Movie casting is as important as writing the screenplay or choosing the director.
A good script + a talented director + a good set of actors with screen chemistry = Good (if not great) movies


Imagine...

Pretty Woman starring Molly Ringwald (Breakfast Club) with Richard Gere?

Sandra Bullock (Miss Congeniality) playing Rafi (Uma Thurman) in the movie Prime, alongside Bryan Greenberg and Meryl Streep?


Anne Hathaway (Princess Diaries 1 & 2) playing Alison Scott in the movie Knocked Up alongside Seth Rogen?


Gwyneth Paltrow (Proof) and Leo DeCaprio in Titanic?


Nicole Kidman (White Oleander) in The Reader?


The Graduate starring Robert Redford (Barefoot in the Park) instead of Dustin Hoffman?

John Travolta (Grease) as Forrest Gump?

and..

Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line) and Mark Wahlberg (Max Payne) in Brokeback Mountain?