related: Slate has a series of articles today celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the film Sneakers, of which John Swansburg writes:
It’s a movie I can watch again and again and never get tired of; it’s the movie I happily settle on when every other DVD or download doesn’t quite suit my mood. I think I find it so trusty because it’s action-packed without being too violent, and smart without taking itself too seriously. And, perhaps most important, it’s perfectly paced: Even when you know every scene by heart, not one of them feels like it lasts a second longer than it needs to. I’ve seen Sneakers more than a dozen times; I’ve never hit fast forward.
Singles, a perfect example of a movie where I was so much more interested in a supposed B plot (Bridget Fonda and Matt Dillon) thna the supposed A plot of Kyra Sedgwick and the guy from the Julia Roberts cancer movie.
ReplyDelete#14 I have a quibble for, that no one could have kept the Crying Game a secret. I think we all did a damn fine job this year with not talking about what happens in Cabin in the Woods, and that's among Whedon fans, a group more connected than usual.
I always thought I was alone in my love for Sneakers.
ReplyDeleteDamn, I don't even know if I own Sneakers on DVD. Need to check tonight, that's a film I haven't seen in far too long, and a perfectly good one to watch with my kids.
ReplyDelete"That may seem like an obvious statement in 2012, but it was written (in 1992) before Google, before Facebook, before smartphones, before any of us had email."
ReplyDeleteN00b. It wasn't that nobody had e-mail in 1992; it's that after 1993, everybody had e-mail. That quibble aside, Sneakers is still a lot of fun. Now that I think about it, I realize that Burn Notice has a similar feel (to me, anyway): good capers that mix suspense, action, and humor.
Based on my Facebook feed today, you/we are nowhere near alone.
ReplyDeleteCampbell Scott was that guy.
ReplyDeleteThank you Heather, I just could NOT come up with the name at the time.
ReplyDelete