Then, we have others such as a guy who plays a guitar and sings and another who is extremely introverted, on and on. What was the purpose of inserting that in the movie? What did that have to do with the story? Nothing, obviously, and it wasn't necessary but when have Liberal filmmakers ever exercised good judgment? Also profiled is an interesting woman who won this tournament once but hasn't been close since. Then, we get profiles of the top players, from the young prodigy who first entered the tournament at 16 and is one of the favorites to win at 20 the veteran who always is in the finals but never can do better than third to the gay guy who is seen at home playing pinball with his roommate. If one can ignore the obvious political bias, it's still interesting. The first part is simply an unabashed Liberal love-fest with big plugs for the Times and NPR, and the celebs are all big Liberals, from Bill Clinton to Jon Stewart to Ken Burns, the Indigo Girls, etc. We see the top players profiled and then are witness to the 200- tournament with it's dramatic 3-person playoff finals. The second part - the largest segment - is devoted to USA Crossword Championships held in each in Stamford, Conn. The film is in two parts: a look at "celebrities" who play, and some of their comments and to the man who puts together the daily New York Times puzzle. If the puzzles aren't fun to you, I doubt this movie would be entertaining, either. Is it enough to hold the interest of a non-crossword player? I doubt it. Yes, it did, so kudos to the documentary to make it interesting enough. Being someone who has enjoyed figuring out crossword puzzles here and there over the last 20 years, I was enthused about watching this documentary and wondered if it would renew the passion I used to have for doing these puzzles.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |