Loser

[iviemarie]

Sorry I am such a loser to update my LJ. I just get so busy at work, that I don't have a lot of time. Like right now....I know what I should be doing and what I should be working on, but instead I am feeling guilty so I log in to write this little diddy

Comments

Jesus Christ!

[corinne979]

I didn't think it was up for discussion whether Sandra Bollocks (ha ha, sorry) was supercute or not. (And I know what this is really about and you should know by now that all the snide remarks in the world can't detract from your capacity for being terribly photogenic.) She's a goddamn movie star. OF COURSE she's cute. I can't think of a single female movie star who isn't attractive, even if it's "oddly attractive," like Uma Thurman. But I concur with Elmo--her movies are completely unwatchable, if only because of their predictability and truly horrendous scripts. She should do a Coen Brothers movie--you know, Zeta-Jones her way into respectability. Wait, that never happened. Zeta-Jones still sucks. At least she's got her symmetrical face, I guess.

Re: Jesus Christ!

[corinne979]

Oops. That isn't Elmo. For a second, I thought you were Katie Stone, redgrrl. My deepest apologies are extended. YOU would never date a 30-year-old who lived at home. But you WOULD date an 18-year-old who did. Ha ha.

Re: Jesus Christ!

[iviemarie]

I think people mistake my thing for Sandra Bullock as a liking for her movies. Although I do enjoy them when I am PMSing with a large tub of icecream or sick and delirious; I still have to admit there is no subtance to her characters, the plot, etal. the movie.

Re: Jesus Christ!

[corinne979]

Fair enough, but if you like her just because she's pretty, you could do a whole lot better with other actresses who are both cute AND interested in good work. I'll compose an exhaustive list if you'd like.