IV

[Prashant Kumar]

Yeah, you have agreement from here. Taking IV on its own terms, rather than
as a crumb fallen from the table of ``Pynchon" (however construed), would
surely produce a better movie.

P.


On 17 May 2013 12:43, Rev'd Seventy-Six <revd.76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Subject: Re: IV
> To: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
>
> Stanley Kubrick wasn't Stanley Kubrick 100% of the time, either.  Don't
> demand too much of the man and you might be pleasantly surprised by what he
> serves up.
>
> It seems premature to be looking at this thing as being a glass half full
> of cyanide, is all I'm saying.  IV is a fun potboiler and should, with a
> little bit of love & skill, be a romp of a movie and a welcome relief from
> the last couple of tortured psychological portraits PTA's provided.
> Personally I'm eager to see him try his hand at some light entertainment
> again, and after TWBB & THE MASTER I suspect he is too.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130517/0e7270b5/attachment.html>