|
Comments / Notes
It _was_ mentioned before, but only because someone had mixed it up with... ah, I cannot remember. Some other movie which my friends are dragging me too but I secretly think will flop.
David the Egg <[email protected]> (gradcd-bootp-94.gradcenter.brown.edu)
Providence - Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 09:10:15 (PST)
why don't they use the original version? i mean, i respect the love spit love version, cause it's richard butler... but what's up with movies using cover versions of eighties songs? is it 'cause most nineties bands material suck so bad that they have to cover an eighties song in order to at least sound like they have talent?
state of emergency
(cache.ucsc.edu)
- Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 15:43:09 (PST)
for heaven's sake why not use the smiths version. to not do so can only sicken me. the desecration!
vincent snyder
(163.newark-11-12rs.nj.dial-access.att.net)
n.j. - Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 18:51:56 (PST)
hmm he of the psychadelic furs, can't be too bad, at least it wasn't everclear's version! plus also the original of how soon is now was in the wedding singer of course and i thought it was woefully out of place in an adam sandler movie.
john <[email protected]> (spider-te051.proxy.aol.com)
- Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 06:56:49 (PST)
In a way, yes, I wish that the original Smiths version was used in the film. Yet, on the contrary, I am glad that it is the cover by LSL and not the original. Basically, I wouldn't want a smart and sleek song by the Smiths to be associated with one of these mediocre, heftily-cliched, teeny-bopper flicks that produce absolutely no reedeming quality whatsoever. Are they going to quit producing these damn pre-pubescent movies or what? Perhaps, this was a blessing to have the Smiths excluded......thus, not having to hear any "guilt by association" comments.
irksome-ivan <[email protected]> (128.163.17.208)
- Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 09:00:42 (PST)
|