Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 4:12 pm
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 10:28 am 
but if they are, why do they look good. Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:24 pmMagpiespower wrote:A bit flat, a bit ho-hum.
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:12 pmSandoid wrote:Magpiespower wrote:A bit flat, a bit ho-hum.
Agreed. Pretty bland junkie romance, straightjacketed by the limited story beats you can use in a heroin focussed narrative. Nothing new here. Watered-down visual style too. Think Armfield should stick to theatre. Not bad performances though, once you get over the pop-culture baggage they're carrying.
I've seen worse.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:07 amMagpiespower wrote:Sandoid wrote:Magpiespower wrote:A bit flat, a bit ho-hum.
Agreed. Pretty bland junkie romance, straightjacketed by the limited story beats you can use in a heroin focussed narrative. Nothing new here. Watered-down visual style too. Think Armfield should stick to theatre. Not bad performances though, once you get over the pop-culture baggage they're carrying.
I've seen worse.
Yeah - didn't really give two sh!ts about the two leads.
Also, where was the comedy that all the reviews gushed about?
Didn't find anything particularly funny at all.
For champagne stoner comedy, can't go past Sean Penn in 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High.'
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:35 pmClassic Teen stoner flick, Pink is exactly like my best mateJimmy wrote:
dazed and confused....
"Thats what i love about high school girls man, i keep getting older, they stay the saaaaaaaaame age....yeahhhh"