who loves chick flicks?

not I, b/c this is what they always look like:

public enemies sucked.

and this is why:

• it is REALLY cheesy writing. like, makes-you-wince-cheesy. "he said bye bye blackbird"??? shut the fuck up.
  
• the music blows. 10 minutes into the film they play some epic shit and it was way before you care about any of the characters or storyline, so it feels forced.
• speaking of feeling forced, they practically shove the attributes of the characters down your throat. wasn't this supposed to be an oscar contender? I'm pretty sure I can come to my own conclusions about the characters rather than the director telling me how to feel (side note: that is a total pet peeve when movies do that. a good movie should guide me to feel a certain way about a character, not put it on a platter and then make me eat it).

here are the good parts:

• johnny depp is always a good actor
• christian bale is okay, too, although they could've explained a lot lot more about his character and his history
• the two old texas lawmen that come up to hunt dillinger are fuckin awesome cuz they're all quiet and old school and use their brains not force to figure out dillinger's next move
  

frankensteinin' people

a video, called "sex lies & photoshop" on the nytimes website addresses the vast extent that magazines photoshop pics and how in france right now, there is a law trying to be passed where the magazines have to disclose the amount of photoshopping done. yah fuckin right.

of course I think magazines/posters overphotoshop the SHIT out of pics, and I would loveeee if no pics were photoshopped b/c then you could see the reality of what a supermodel/actor looks like (even though they would be wearing tons of makeup), but the truth is, that shit won't happen.

like anybody (besides me) wants to see this in a magazine,

compared to this:


here is another prime example (I still like the one on the right):