tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820750.post2268558076534926229..comments2007-07-31T13:44:11.086-05:00For Peter's Sakehttps://profiles.google.com/105288549341743455033noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820750.post-51685042728552706772007-07-31T13:44:00.000-05:002007-07-31T13:44:00.000-05:00What are you talking about? The role of father was portrayed brilliantly! It was the cinematography that was sub-par. Was the sideways camera an attempt at some edgy avant-garde film technique?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10845310999741739328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820750.post-29155320670757182292007-07-23T11:23:00.000-05:002007-07-23T11:23:00.000-05:00Stunning photography! A five star work of art!! The only shortcoming was the actor playing the part of the 'dad'. His performance was slightly sub par. The director might want to rethink that part. Otherwise a captivating performance of wit and skill.<BR/><BR/>Love,<BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820750.post-53044856172505659462007-07-05T10:10:00.000-05:002007-07-05T10:10:00.000-05:00Maybe a baby had to do with the ripped cannon (see Becca's post) and that's why they don't use babies! They're way to hard to keep on a leash!Mrs. Olsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13994009966911268083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820750.post-87835250208056771282007-07-05T01:20:00.000-05:002007-07-05T01:20:00.000-05:00Dude, an army of babies could _totally_ win a war, with those teeth, and those grabby little arms. At least, if it were a war against me.Melyngochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07894183958877193588noreply@blogger.com