Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0101. Monday, 13 February 1995.
(1) From: Scott Shepherd<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:27 -0500
Subj: Re: Keanu Reeves
(2) From: Paul Stanwood <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 21:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 6.0095 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Shepherd<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Keanu Reeves
Am I the only one who thinks Keanu Reeves is the worst screen actor this side
of Steven Segal? Isn't he indisputably horrible in Branagh's Ado? Is even his
_accent_ endurable in Dracula? I figured in Speed at least he'd be limited to
Schwartzeneggerish oneliners and nonspeaking action sequences, but he honestly
ruined the whole experience for me, every time he opened his mouth or made any
show of emotion.
He has one good trick, the one he does in Parenthood, Bill&Ted, River's Edge,
and My Own Private Idaho.
But HIM in the role of roles? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I get ulcers reading about
it. Are there no bad reviews of that show? Will somebody post them please oh
please?
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Stanwood <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 21:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 6.0095 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg
Comment: Re: SHK 6.0095 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg
I wonder if this review appeared in the SUNDAY Times magazine? It is cheap,
stupid, insulting, and condescending, though these are all characteristics of
the Times of London, too, especially when considering anything that occurs
outside of London itself. Winnipeg IS a long way from Hollywood (one of its
many virtues)!
I suppose this silly reviewer meant "Lieutenant-General" for
"Governor-General", though he/she would not know the difference!
--Just a first impression of an irritating, though (I suppose) well meaning
review.
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Paul Stanwood
English, Univ. of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
