<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>newcritics - Latest Comments in Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.disqus.com/</link><description>the best in web criticism</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:09:59 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375076</link><description>Nice!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Theofanis</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:09:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375075</link><description>24 Connecticut upset fifth ranked Stanford 2 0, eliminating the host Cardinal from the NCAA women's soccer tournament. The Cardinal (15 3 5) were looking to advance to the final eight of the tournament, but instead the Huskies (14 5 2) will be playing for a spot in the final four. They will face Florida State next weekend. The Cardinal made a second Sweet 16 in a row. The six Cardinal seniors depart after compiling 53 wins in their four seasons on the Farm. "It was just a weird game," said Stanford coach Paul Ratcliffe, whose team outshot UConn 12 7. "I felt like we dominated the first half and Connecticut just was able to convert (its) two scoring chances. "I am so proud of the players (who) are moving on from this program, they are such great people." Men's soccer: Andrew Wiedeman scored off a...&lt;a href="http://news-blog-for-you.com/news/36280" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://news-blog-for-you.com/&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">rkbtvxcfjj</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:55:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375074</link><description>Alas, one can't stay an enfant terrible forever (or at least into late middle age), but Almodovar is now the festival circuit's big cuddly teddy bear, his "outrageousness" indivisible from his sentimentality. He couldn't appear at the NY Film Fest Q&amp;amp;A  (for Volver) we were told because he had to fly back to Madrid to accept "a lifetime achievement award" from the&lt;br&gt;Spanish government. At age 57.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sean</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 18:35:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375073</link><description>Personally, I always read what I write before I hit publish. The problem is I'm uzually reely drunkk by the thyme I hit purblish.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dan Leo</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 16:59:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375072</link><description>Et tu, Brutus?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tom Watson</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 14:52:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375071</link><description>A sentence! My kingdom for a correctly written sentence! Pick just about any sentence out of this post and there is some punctuation, grammar, or syntax flaw. I'm so distracted I can't even tell what your point is.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Sure, I'm picking on this post, but many of the others on this site are just as bad. Do you folks read what you write before you hit publish? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Phooey. Now commence killing the messenger. G'head. See it that makes you a better writer.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brutus</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 00:24:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375070</link><description>I don't know about J-P Melville, but the French affection for Jerry Lewis is hard to fathom otherwise, and always has been. &lt;br&gt;It has, however, occurred to me that French people love Jerry Lewis because he may, to them, typify the archetypal American, trying to keep up with the rest of the worlds' suave, smart, and fantastically romantic style. Pathetic Americans have no sensibility, to their eyes, other than our inherently obscene buffoonery and sorry tendency to walk with pigeon-toes.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kathleen Maher</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 09:19:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375069</link><description>Kathleen, you've brought forth a very interesting idea, this business of how we as Americans watch foreign movies in a special way. It occurs to me that the reverse is true also, that foreigners watch American movies in their own odd fashion,  the most obvious example being the veneration the French supposedly have for Jerry Lewis. And I remember ages ago reading an interview with one of my own  favorite French directors, Jean-Pierre Melville: he was asked to name his favorite actor, and he said "Fred MacMurray". Passing right over Laurence Olivier, Marlon Brando, Jean Gabin and all those other hacks...Funny thing is, Melville might have been on to something there.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dan Leo</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 22:17:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375068</link><description>I don't disagree with you at all.&lt;br&gt;Yet until I read your review, I hadn't thought too carefully about the movie other than: I enjoyed it, and while the  use of color was pleasurable, the story (by any standards)really was ridiculous. But to say so too strenuously might be unfair. For me, apparently, subtitles automatically supply an exotic and thus mysterious allure. Penelope Cruz was too beautiful for the context, which made her appear to me, so much more gorgeous than I had judged her from other movies.&lt;br&gt;My leniency toward foreign films may amount to a previously undiscovered prejudice on my part. But it's hard to gauge. &lt;br&gt;For me, it's definitely not a Spanish thing. Four French movies that I have accepted as, well, at least, interesting, may not be. In fairness, too, I should revisit a couple Swedish, German, and Japanese movies for a more honest reappraisal.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kathleen Maher</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 21:57:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375067</link><description>Off the list - saving me a couple of hours. Thankee.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tom Watson</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 21:16:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Volver: A Feast of Banalities</title><link>http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/05/27/volver/#comment-1375066</link><description>THANK YOU. The second most overrated corpse smuggling comedy of 2006, just barely behind Little Miss Sunshine.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Karina</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 21:04:54 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>