Posted
9:49 AM
by Gene
Why movies (and especially movie-ad-blurb copywriters) are irrelevant:
one of the Times' artsy-craftsy blurbists writes agitated filler about a masterpiece that
probably won't earn back its production cost (in no small measure thanks to lease clauses), that will be seen by fewer people over its entire run than saw the latest CGI Tolkien in one day -- but talk is how
SLUTSVILLE became immortal, isn't it?