MY THEORY ON PARTICIPLES: PART II
No one listens in
There they go, using a participle in a movie title. Yes, she's hot. Yes, when a bus bearing her poster drives by, there is a need to search through law books in order to verify whether physically assaulting a bus earns the maximum sentence. But still, the movie WILL be bad. The synopsis itself earns a groan or two: "A self-centered blond New York City party girl (Kate Hudson) inherits her sister's three kids (ages 5, 10, and 15) and, after becoming a single parent overnight seeks guidance (and redemption from her decadent lifestyle) by embarking on a love affair with the minister at the kids' school..."
Hmph! Since the last entry addressing this issue (ignore the poem and the oversized comic dividing the two), more than one example has been suggested to me by my avid readers. Bringing Down the House, suggested by E.H.: excellent example. E.H. also suggested Van Helsing as an honorable mention, because it includes that pernicious Ing that is a fouler creature than any CGI'd beast that Hugh Jackman fights in that movie. M.B. agreed with my comments, and thought that Debbie Doing Dallas would have sounded a lot worse than Debbie Does Dallas. S.C. suggested Kissing Jessica Stein, being a good movie, as an exception to my theory, and the reviewers would seem to agree with her. I know, readers, it's too much. First I show you Kate Hudson and now I start quoting movies that carry a girl-meets-girl theme
By the way, one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (it was automatically short-listed upon viewing) is The Wedding Planner. A gerundive, not a participle. Terrible. God-awful. Dismal.