The 10 Reasons Why You Know a Movie Will Be a Bomb

10. You’ve been seeing the trailer for the past 6 months.

9. It’s about family members going home for the holidays.

8. The female lead’s best friend is an African American woman or a gay man.

7. There’s a scene where anywhere from 2 to 6 characters dance to a Motown song.

6. Diane Keaton stars as a divorced mother with at least one daughter, most likely two, and very possibly three, and it takes place in Connecticut!

5. The trailer contains at least two of these phrases: 1. “inspired” by a true story, 2. against all odds, 3. with nothing left to lose.

4. It’s the 3rd film in the series, or the 4th or 5th or in Rocky’s case the 25th.

3. It’s about animals who talk and venture on a perilous journey to save the day.

2. It’s based on a Jane Austin novel but Keira Knightley is not in it. (Has that ever happened?)

1. It stars Diane Lane as a middle aged woman looking for Love in NYC, Tuscany, North Carolina, - oh, you pick the place!

A former teacher of English Literature, Paul J. Cassese taught in the NYC school system for more than thirty years. Paul enjoyed taking the wonderful film courses of Richard Brown and Scott Siegel, and is excited about his new role as an online film reviewer. Going to the movies has been a passion of Paul’s since boyhood. Paul thanks his dad for passing that on to him.


Mona Hollander said on October 10, 2008


That’s hysterical, Paul. Thanks once again, for saving me money on future films! HGa! Ha! Good job!!!!

ilene bauer said on October 14, 2008


i look forward to everything you write, paul! very clever, amusing and 100% accurate! thanks for the laughs on this one.

don friedman said on November 30, 2008


To say you are clever would be an understatement. Why don’t you write a book, I like your style.

Sharon Elster said on December 3, 2008


Right on the money, Paul. Your 10 reasons are exactly why people say “They don’t make movies like they used to”. I might add they don’t make actors like they used to either.

Jaqueline said on December 3, 2012


Pam I’m pretty new to blngoigg and stumbled on your site a few weeks ago. I sat and read every single post. I love the interactions between your girls and that y’all enjoy cooking together so much. My oldest son and my daughter are out of the house now, one at college and one just graduated from college, and they call me up all the time and ask how to make something or tell me about something they saw on The Food Network. I love that they are becoming cooks on their own and that it’s something we can share. Anyway, that’s a long way to get to the point that I really enjoy your site and plan to try your recipes. And, of course, since I have a cookbook obsession, I plan to go buy your cookbook one or six! Thanks for sharing and thanks for the inspiration.

AMr said on August 1, 2015


Thank you for your post on this interesting case.I find two ascptes of this case fascinating. First, the idea that national amnesties, issued by a national authority, can be disregarded based on international case-law to the effect that international courts will not give effect to such national grants of amnesty. Even assuming there is a consensus that national amnesties should not carry over and have effect in international tribunals (which I find dubious - even the Lome decision characterised the norm at issue as ‘crystalising’), there is a big difference between asserting that the international legal community should or will not give effect to amnesties, versus asserting that national courts, with jurisdictions limited by national law, will similarly not give effect to amnesties. Garzons willingness to examine these alleged crimes against humanity is laudable, but to me, the reliance on international law by Judge Garzon is entirely misplaced. Has anyone examined the issue of the relationship between national and international amnesties in depth and come to a different conclusion?Second, the intertemporal issues raised by this case are, as you point out in your post, woth commenting on. It is interesting to note that Garzon is careful to deal with this issue with repect to the crimes against humanity issue, but not with respect to the amnesty issue. This is a question that has been dealt with in the literature on amnesties (my own opinion coming down, albeit regrettably, on the side of applying the law at the time of the grant of amnesty), but im wondering if anyone has any comments on the appropriate timeframe within which to examine the legality of the Spanish amnesty. Should Judge Garzon have looked to relevent law in 1970’s, or contemporary times?

Seniors, speak up! Let us know what you think.

Post a Comment