Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 529386 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3420 on: April 09, 2019, 09:03:28 PM »
That just means it's time for Suspiria  :P

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3421 on: April 09, 2019, 09:11:51 PM »
Lol, I was gonna say the same thing. A 2.5 hour horror movie is just what 'noff needs right now.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22967
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3422 on: April 09, 2019, 09:17:09 PM »
Or a 4-hour horror documentary...

Leaving Neverland

HBO's bringing the child abuse stories. This feels like the mirror opposite of The Tale.

To use a legal term, one issue with this documentary is mootness. Though I haven't watched the R. Kelly thing yet, he is an active artist, and an active abuser. There is a social value to exposing and holding him accountable. Michael Jackson is long dead, and spending four hours beating on his corpse over something that was in some respects known about him doesn't seem a particularly productive activity. The actual story in The Tale probably could be moot, but the combination of fictionalization and artistic style in the telling makes it universal. While you could say Leaving Neverland is a deep dive into how predators groom victims, its complete lack of artistry undercuts any greater relevance.

Ultimately, this just seems brutalist. There is what feels like a 30 minute segment where James Safechuck effectively takes us on a tour of Neverland Ranch, announcing at each stop that he and MJ had sex there. There is what feels like a 10 minute segment where Wade Robson describes in exhaustive detail every configuration or element of their sexual interactions. Much like Grey Gardens, I don't think willing participation is a get out of exploitation free card, and Safechuck/Robson, and to be honest Michael Jackson, seem to be exploited for the director's own salacious purpose. Maybe a two hour cut of this would be more tolerable.

D

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3423 on: April 09, 2019, 09:40:48 PM »
Interesting reaction Bondo. Do they interview the parents of the kids in that Documentary? As a parent wouldn't it be strange to leave your kid with this person? I mean, I could imagine something like that today, with a female star, like Beyonce. I bet a ton of parents would be willing to let their kids have a sleepover with Beyonce. But what about a dude star? And who would it be even? Like, even if wholesome Tom Hanks was like "yea, I'm going to have a sleepover with your kids", that'd give you pause, wouldn't it?

As a kid at that time though, I could totally see wanting to go hang at Jackson's amusement park. I remember seeing videos of that place as a kid and thinking how awesome it would probably be. All built to lure kids in or what?

I feel like there's probably a lot for me to learn from the doc. I dunno. I get your exploitation point though. It's f'd up, but I'm interested.



That just means it's time for Suspiria  :P
Lol, I was gonna say the same thing. A 2.5 hour horror movie is just what 'noff needs right now.
The first time I've been glad of my internet connection that is too slow to stream anything! :)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22967
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3424 on: April 09, 2019, 09:52:57 PM »
Yes, plenty with the parents. The parents certainly aren't as inexplicably awful as those in Abducted in Plain Sight.

It's odd, arguably the "strongest" defense of Jackson was that he was so emotionally stunted that he was truly a child and thus it is truly as innocent as a childhood sleepover, even if it looks bad from the outside. But in fact this perception was his greatest tool in offending. Two points on that conception though is that there are a lot of shenanigans that can take place at sleepovers between same-age people and secondly just no.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3425 on: April 10, 2019, 03:52:47 PM »
Hustle & Flow (Craig Brewer, 2005)         6/10

There is a brutal sort of wholesomeness to this story. Sometimes it's even downright corny. I didn't expect that. It has some really good scenes, and in those moments the movie is gritty and real and tragic. Then it swings the other way and it's got these cheesy montages that feel like they're from a film they'd make kids in high school see. The rap itself was problematic I thought. I didn't think there was anything special about it. This works at first because I thought maybe that's what the story was going for. A character who thinks they have something special, and they're surrounded by sycophants, and it was all going to build to an embarrassing conclusion. But that wasn't how it played out. I was supposed to actually believe Howard was this amazing hidden gem of an artist... but the film couldn't convince me of it. I had to force myself to accept that in the world of the movie, his music was actually sensational and had appeal that transcended musical genres even. It made for a weird experience overall.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11974
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3426 on: April 10, 2019, 04:59:21 PM »
The Mirror Has Two Faces (Barbra Streisand, 1996)         8/10
An unexpected pleasure! This is one of the best rom-coms I've ever seen. Quite out of the blue too. It has almost zero mentions on the forum, and I've never heard it mentioned on any podcast I've listened to (that I can remember). I only put it on because I was running out of interesting looking movies to watch. The security tape on the dvd case hadn't even been  torn yet, lol! Apparently the person who bought it didn't want to watch it even. :))

It was surprisingly delightful. Very very much a rom com, but a unique take. I found myself unable to anticipate how scenes were going to play out, or where exactly the laughs were going to come from. The characters zig when I thought they would zag. And they're not so inept as to be frustrating. They're highly quirky, as you expect from the genre, but they remain recognizably human. There's real thought put into the dialogue... no scenes felt like the movie was on autopilot. I like the periphery characters too. All of them.

And when the film gets real, when things get serious, it's strong there as well. Really strong. There's a few scenes between Streisand and Lauren Bacall (who plays her mother) that really impress. I'm very surprised this is an adapted screenplay because the film feels so personal. Most of all I'm just surprised at how nothing about the film annoyed me. I don't feel like I would have to make a lot of apologies for it were I to recommend it. Not if the person goes in still recognizing the fact it's a rom com.

I'm going to venture a guess and say Sandy hasn't seen this one. I hope that's the case, and not that she has seen it and finds it unremarkable, in which case I would have to defer to the resident expert. ;)

:))

My views on rom coms aren't always popular! Take You've Got Mail for example!

I have seen this! Here's my complete memory of it.

Smart Streisand professor, eating junk food to explain frumpy.
Montage of exercise, hair and clothes
Vibrant Streisand full of life and super confident.


With this memory came a few triggers, such as why are women who aren't model size shown as uninterested in their health? :D

Okay that's on me, so I won't hold it against the movie. I was much younger when I saw it, so I'm super interested in what I'd think about it now. I was a huge Streisand fan back then and still have three of her films in my top 100. That being said, she has a double edged sword of perfectionism and it keeps me from fully immersing in films like Prince of Tides. She had a scene redone because she didn't like how she looked in it, but it was so different from the scenes around it, it stuck out like a sore thumb. I'm meandering to try and say that I think what oldkid said about her not being able to pull off dowdy may prove a little problematic for me. She's too bright and precise.

But! I will lay that aside and enjoy the show! I'll let you know when I get to it. Thanks, smirnoff for the fun review and the reminder.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3427 on: April 10, 2019, 05:49:42 PM »
Hmm, I may be helped then by my complete ignorance of all her other work, on screen and off. I didn't have that hurdle to get over, buying her in this role, since this was my first exposure to her afaik.

I have seen this! Here's my complete memory of it.

Smart Streisand professor, eating junk food to explain frumpy.
Montage of exercise, hair and clothes
Vibrant Streisand full of life and super confident.

That is sort of accurate. See if any of this refreshes your memory. It is just my interpretation though.

I don't feel like her confident personality changes that much before and after the montage. She was always self-aware, and confident enough to be self-deprecating even in front of her class. Her frump had no effect on it. She just wasn't very motivated by the male prospects in her life to go to all the effort of looking nice. However she happens to be exactly what Bridges is looking for at the moment he finds her. All the exercise and clothes and hair is tactic to try and make him have sex with her, since she ultimately comes to the realization that she's not willing to settle for the platonic relationship that she initially agreed to.

The premise itself was, I'm sure, written as an absurdity... something they felt the audience would laugh at. "As if guy would NOT want sex, hahahahaha" kind of thing. I actually didn't find it all that absurd though. Maybe I've been listening to too much Dan Savage or something where they have regular discussion around asexuality, low libidos, companionate relationships and that sort of thing, but I just took Bridges' character at his word. It was an intellectual decision not to let sex into a relationship because he wanted stability and saw sex as destabilizing. Fair enough I thought. You do you. Streisand, with her lack of good prospects, is willing to be with him because he's nice, intelligent, and attractive. The best thing to come across her plate in some time. The no sex thing is, initially, a price of admission she's willing to pay.

I forgot what point I was trying to make... I'm just describing the movie now. :))

Blah blah blah, maybe the premise has actually improved with age.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 05:54:06 PM by smirnoff »

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11974
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3428 on: April 10, 2019, 06:09:31 PM »
:)) :)) :))

This could have been a chat review! Except I haven't seen it (again) yet! I have so many questions and blanks, that I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe we should make a thread where one person watches a movie and the other doesn't and see if they can create a dialogue about it. ;)

May I take a rain check on the fun points you're making? I'm still reeling from your first sentence saying you don't know any of Streisand's other work.  :o

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3429 on: April 10, 2019, 06:26:24 PM »
:)) :)) :))

This could have been a chat review! Except I haven't seen it (again) yet! I have so many questions and blanks, that I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe we should make a thread where one person watches a movie and the other doesn't and see if they can create a dialogue about it. ;)

May I take a rain check on the fun points you're making? I'm still reeling from your first sentence saying you don't know any of Streisand's other work.  :o

Yes we'll have to come back to this. :) I'll keep you posted if I further my Streisand education in the meanwhile.