Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
kwackers
Reviews
Rumor Has It... (2005)
Good premise, bad execution.
I went to see this movie with my girlfriend. I didn't have high expectations of it, but on the other hand some "chick" movies have surprised me so I tried to have an open mind.
The movie opens with the familiar premise: the female lead, Sarah, is having second thoughts about marrying her boyfriend Jeff, who is nice but not really exciting (he's a lawyer). The pair are on their way from New York to the Sarah's sister's wedding in Pasadena. It is at this wedding that the premise for the movie is introduced, that the movie and book "The Graduate" are based on Sarah's mother and grandmother. Obviously Sarah is a little upset about this, even more so when she realises that this could mean that her father is not who she thinks it is. Following the wedding (in which Sarah ignores her only sister's nuptials to glower at her grandmother) Sarah decides to track down the man, a Beau Brady.
Sarah locates Beau in San Francisco. Beau is and is quick to reassure her that he can't be her father due to "Sudden Testicular Trauma" he suffered as a child. What follows is a forced romance between Beau and Sarah. There is zero chemistry between the two actors, and the "romance" is pushed on us too fast for it to be believable. It was even slightly disturbing to watch, as Sarah switches from believing Beau to be her father to sleeping with him in a few hours. What follows is fairly predictable. Sarah becomes even more uncertain and completely ignores her fiancé. Jeff eventually comes looking for her, to be revealed by a slow camera pan as Sarah and Beau kiss. At this stage it looks like Sarah and Jeff's relationship is pretty much finished.
Sarah heads back to her family home in Pasadena. It is here that her father reveals knew that Sarah's mother slept with Beau, but he forgave her because he loved her. Buoyed by this information Sarah heads back to New York to confront Jeff. After offering a weak apology she leaves. Of course this is a romantic film so Jeff chases after her to offer his forgiveness, and everyone lives happily ever after, as indicated by the closing montage of their wedding.
The premise of this film had a lot of potential, but I don't think the filmmakers knew what to do with it. The character of Sarah spends much of the movie wandering around, either looking lost or being self obsessed in a "woe is me, I have not yet found my life's meaning" kind of way. Many parts of the film felt forced, the romance between Sarah and Beau, but most noticeably the conclusion. Having Jeff chase after the woman who cheated on him felt like it was added only to give the film the classic romantic ending.
The acting was not bad, but most performances were quite dull. Jennifer Aniston (Sarah) failed to create any empathy for her character. Mark Ruffalo (Jeff) and Kevin Costner (Beau) delivered passable performances. The best character was the grandmother, played by Shirley MacLaine. She saved much of this film from being dull, and provided most of the comedy that was otherwise missing from this "Romantic Comedy"
911: In Plane Site (2004)
One of the most stupid pieces of TV I have seen.
I have just seen this "documentary" on TV. Anyone who believes this rubbish really needs to turn off their TV and actually start thinking for themselves. The presenter begins the program by asserting this is a conspiracy and not a "conspiracy theory" and makes some strange comparison to buying raffle tickets, and it gets worse from there.
The first theory presented in the program is that a missile hit the Pentagon. By casting doubt on random pieces of information, however irrelevant, the presenter is hoping that we suddenly believe his version of events. In one example he quotes an independently published book that states the damage was 100 feet across, when it was actually less. Somehow this is meant to strengthen his case, but he never actually says HOW this should convince us.
For the remainder of the program the presenter focuses on the World Trade Centre attacks. Most of this segment is based around quotes taken from people soon after the attacks. Anyone watching on that day will remember how scrambled information was to begin with. People who have just witnessed a traumatic event are not reliable witnesses, especially when there is actual video evidence (which was ignored in this program) that contradicts what they are saying.
Most of the "information" that this program is based on was taken from random conspiracy websites. The producers should have saved themselves some time and visited Snopes: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm I'll leave you with a final thought - even if the official versions of events is wrong that DOESN'T make this version any more correct. Remember that, watch the program again, and you will see how little "evidence" this program actually presents towards its inane theories.