I just got back from seeing Waitress. I am in total agreement with Matt. Funny, sad, sweet, poignant, uplifting, (Nathan is hot), great ending. And I was earwormed with the little song.

Excuse me, I should have written "that bad things should happen to unsympathetic characters is a traditional aspect of horror I find to be poor writing." Janet Leigh's death is, I think, outside that tradition. The death of, say, the Italian detective in Hannibal is within it.

Obviously, I disagree about Psycho being an aberration. I think the tradition is simply: people do bad things, or risky things, and they suffer as a result. Generally the consequences are out of proportion, because that's what makes it horror and not a docu-drama. There has been a more existential bent to some modern horror, so there are exceptions where there's no real reason for the bad shit happening, but horror is rooted in cautionary tales. Step away from the campfire and the boogeyman will get you.

A doctor wants to create life, and makes a monster that destroys everyone he loves. Some kids sneak out for sex & drugs, and a maniac kills them. Some other kids tease a girl, and she turns their prom into an abattoir. A man worried about overpopulation unintentionally unleases a plague that wipes out most of humanity. People mess with atomic power and pretty soon there are giant beasties knocking buildings down.

And rape-revenge stories are practically an entire subgenre to themselves. You're certainly not supposed to find the gang in "Last House on the Left" sympathetic, but that's because they're the villains for half the movie, and you're supposed to sympathize with their victims.

There is almost always a reason for what happens, but that doesn't make the victims deserving of their fate. So no, I don't think unsympathetic characters are somehow traditional to horror. It's true that they turn up in bad horror, but that's equally true of bad SF or bad drama or bad comedy.

What I'm saying is that I wish that writers should strive beyond their current subjectivity.

Ah. Whereas I think subjectivity is the point and purpose of writing.

Just got back from Ocean's 13 and it was FUN. Tight plot, lovely light tone, the usual smart Soderbergh cinematic styling, and the cute boys we love. Popcorn, but yummy popcorn.

Just got back from Ocean's 13 and it was FUN. Tight plot, lovely light tone, the usual smart Soderbergh cinematic styling, and the cute boys we love. Popcorn, but yummy popcorn.

Same here. I called Steven Soderbergh as the doctor and Bob called the Bourne movies parody when Linus is in London.

I think it is a question of style, and of what makes a character's actions "bad" or bad enough to be haunted/hunted/killed. With Frankenstein, you had to think a little bit about why playing God rebounded on the doctor. And you had the distraction of the monster - were you supposed to focus on his story? Hitchcock did the same with Psycho, but made it a bit more obvious that Leigh was a Bad Girl (she changes from a white bra to a black bra), before distracting you with Norman's story.

It's sort of generally agreed that one shouldn't play God, but is teen sex really punishable by death? Is taking a school vacation in a crappy shack really punishable of rape by tree? Is being female enough "bad" to merit brutal torture? Movies currently make it more obvious why the characters are being punished, but the reasons are, to my mind, less useful as social lessons.

Will someone confirm for me that there was no J---a R-----s in Ocean's Thirteen ? If so, I may be able to view the damn thing....

Not according to IMDB, Theo.

No CZJ either, according to the EW interview with Pitt and Clooney.

There's no CZJ and no JR but there is Ellen Barkin, although from what I understand it's not a romantic role.

Better and better. I may actually view this one.