Some points:1. Kudos to Hugh Grant's glasses.
2. I don't get why Hugh Grant was criticized and kinda ostracized after being caught with that hooker later after this movie (basically his introduction to American culture) was released. For one, if non-celebrity people have screwed up sexual tastes and needs, why wouldn't good-looking celebrities? Also, the argument is made that why would you want an ugly hooker when you had Elizabeth Hurley at home. Nothing against Hurley (a nice piece), but who said they were having sex? Maybe she was holding out? Maybe Grant had gone without it due to work scheduling for four months? The reasoning is limitless. Frankly, if I looked like Grant, I'd screwed everything in sight that would have me.
3. Grant was 34 when he filmed this movie.
4. I'd kill myself if I had to go to all those weddings.
5. The director and casting almost had to do this on purpose. How can you not cast at least one attractive woman? How is that possible? Kristin Scott Thomas is the closest and, yet, her face is all pointy and she's a rail. Andie MacDowell is too safe. At times she looks awful. Not that I'm saying that you need a bunch of knock-outs in this film or any film. It's just uncanny, that not even by happenstance, a really attractive female is cast. Just odd.
No comments:
Post a Comment