<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"> 
    
<channel>
    

    <title>A serious movie</title>
    <link>http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/a-serious-movie1/</link>
    <description>Joel and Ethan Coens&#8217; meditation on mid&#45;century Jewish life opened over the weekend, and the reviewers have lots to say about it.</description>
    <dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>bharris@jta.org</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2009</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2009-10-05T;20:09:01-05:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.pmachine.com/" />
 


    <item>
      <title>Comment by danny bloom</title>
      <link>danbloom@gmail.com</link>
      <description>Ben, good summary of diff reviews. one comment in NYT said this:


Really Bad, Unfortunately


This film offered nothing to hang on to &#45; it offered a very ugly perspective on the culture, which is perhaps more hazardous than to attack the religious perspective. Everyone was ugly, every stereotype was illustrated offering no backdrop for the absurdity to play against. The film merely displayed an ugly culture doing shameful things with little point or consequence. When Woody Allen was in his prime, he addressed these questions with humor and charm. Neither of these was present in this film. It was just a group of people I did not have an interest in watching being irritating and either dooming themselves, or being doomed by fate. Not worth watching. It could have been done much better. An ugly film that missed the mark. 

— NotAHater, New York, NY</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ben, good summary of diff reviews. one comment in NYT said this:
</p>
<p>
Really Bad, Unfortunately
</p>
<p>
This film offered nothing to hang on to - it offered a very ugly perspective on the culture, which is perhaps more hazardous than to attack the religious perspective. Everyone was ugly, every stereotype was illustrated offering no backdrop for the absurdity to play against. The film merely displayed an ugly culture doing shameful things with little point or consequence. When Woody Allen was in his prime, he addressed these questions with humor and charm. Neither of these was present in this film. It was just a group of people I did not have an interest in watching being irritating and either dooming themselves, or being doomed by fate. Not worth watching. It could have been done much better. An ugly film that missed the mark. 
<br />
— NotAHater, New York, NY
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Comment by Bill Pearlman</title>
      <link>WPearlman@aol.com</link>
      <description>Looking forward to seeing it. BTW the John Goodman character in the &#8220;Big Lebowski&#8221; was in its own way one of the most pro&#45;jewish, pro&#45;israel characters  that you&#8217;ll ever find.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking forward to seeing it. BTW the John Goodman character in the &#8220;Big Lebowski&#8221; was in its own way one of the most pro-jewish, pro-israel characters  that you&#8217;ll ever find.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

 
</channel>
</rss>
