Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

win a date with ginnifer goodwin!

Recommended Posts

I love this actress.

I thought she was the best thing about Mona Lisa Smile.

And tonight I caught a preview of Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! -- just to take a breather between ultra-violent historical epics directed by Mel Gibson -- and I thought she was the best thing about this film, too. ("I will give myself to you in ways that you have only read about in drug stores!" -- I know, I know, actors don't write their lines, but she delivers it So Well.)

Amazingly, she has never been in any other feature films, apart from these two. However, she did apparently have a two-year role on the TV series Ed, and she had a part in some TV-movie called, um, Porn 'n Chicken. Okay. That's, um, nice to know.

Anyway, I would never say that anybody should see either of her movies just because she happens to be in them. But if someone drags you to see either of these flicks, take comfort in the knowledge that Ginnifer Goodwin is in both of them. She's a cutie, and she's hot.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazingly, she has never been in any other feature films, apart from these two.  However, she did apparently have a two-year role on the TV series Ed, and she had a part in some TV-movie called, um, Porn 'n Chicken.  Okay.  That's, um, nice to know.

Yes, yes, yes! She was GREAT on Ed as Cheswick's friend/ unattainable love interest (sort of an onrunning Shakespearian low and mirrored love tangle). I have seen her in other, little known flicks, the likes of which I cannot at the moment recall. My wife and I have pointed her out to each other.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...