MovieChat Forums > Tabbycat > Replies
Tabbycat's Replies
Powerful indeed.
Never seen this subject handled so deeply and candidly.
The Tale we tell ourselves is the one that matters.
Even in the new online-everything world of 2018, HBO original films still command.
"Whatever reason" = porn star.
After a brief flirtation mid-decade with legitimizing porn (and resulting in the highest-budget skinflicks ever made), by decade's end it had passed. No one wanted a porn star in their mainstream flick, no matter how beautiful.
The industry saw that she could act and carry a lead.
They just didn't care.
Titters?
When I saw this at a Los Angeles Cronenberg festival in 1981, complete with the star of Shivers in tow -- that line brought HOWLS and ROARS of laughter.
I had one, but I'm not sure you want it.
Are you aware it's the heavily-edited R-rated version?
There are more than 73 cuts.
I saw it in a theater in 1977 (the only version available from 1976 till the early 90's).
It's quite a different movie -- almost more like a melodrama.
Agreed re the employment scene. Very unexpected -- surreal, even -- yet made believable.
The father was one of the film's best characters.
I noticed those also.
Like you, I'm very tired of the pandering and virtue-seeking one-sided liberal cultism.
There is one thing that's special: the shock comic bits.
That first scene where she suddenly jumps out of the car, Mom screams, then Ms Bird reappears in a pink cast -- all in mere seconds -- had me laughing hard.
It's good but not Best Pic material.
Same goes for Get Out.
Haven't seen many of the other nominees, but while I liked these two neither is fit to carry out the garbage for Three Billboards.
Um ... yeah ...
Girls aren't the best judge of a woman's attractiveness.
(Or perfume ...
Or dresses ...
Or ... )
Don't know about smoldering (I'm a guy), but this movie got Sam Elliot work for the rest of his life.
Two years on Mission:Impossible?
Nothing.
Then this in 1972.
First horror movie I remember whose (preposterous) premise was "sold" to me by the lead actor's credibility. Wondering if we're in danger or not, we look to the smartest guy in the room -- the quiet educated one with the cameras. Does he look worried? Then maybe we should be, too. Get a peek at his face in the trailer clip. He may speak softly, but his eyes show he is scared to death. That's everything to a movie about insects conspiring to murder people. He carries it off almost single-handed. That's screen presence.
And the industry took notice. Four years later when Paramount was looking for the lead in "Lifeguard", they checked out this flick and hired him. And a star was born.
Noticed it right away as well.
The track has been featured on other film soundtracks including Ben Wheatley’s High-Rise and Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale as well as the television series Mr. Robot, and many commercials. Probably one of the better electronic music tracks ever. A perennial.
You're right: I watched 57 minutes, right up till the "No place else to go" speech. I hadn't enjoyed one minute till then, and that ridiculous line for me spelled Game Over. A movie can ask too much of the audience as far as suspending disbelief. This one did, and then some.
Just caught Penn Jillette talking about Scorpion and his involvement with it. I'd never heard of it before last night (being CBS, it's not on hulu), but had planned to give it a go. Will certainly keep your warning in mind. If true, you're right -- I won't like it. Plus I'll have to watch the commercials.
To avoid looking like a mouthy fool, you might take care next time to reply to the right post.
You ended up sending your puerility Sandoz's way.
So in fact your reply was, itself, a swing and a miss.
And for the wrong team.
It's a threefer:
1) Social status (financial, fame)
2) facebook/twitter sense ("check-in")
3) General: How is Brad doing?
That said, it *is* an ungainly title that probably worked much better in a producer's head. Can't see any VOD browsers stopping dead at that title.
Haven't read that since sixth grade (you?), but at least Mr. Jones didn't let the boars, pigs and dogs into the house while telling his wife, "They have no place else to go, so I told them come on in and invite your friends."
I did and found nothing about a free pass to create a ludicrous premise.
Allegories still have to work.
This one didn't.
Having a film like this open anywhere is evidence of cinema's demise.
The fact that it's the work of the once-great Aronofsky compounds the letdown.
I don't usually respond to obvious trolls, but there might be a valid question beneath the gratuitous insults. I can't really tell.
Are you saying that in a movie where everything sucks, it's ridiculous to single out a premise for criticism? If so, I would disagree. A movie lives or dies, at least initially, by its premise. A ten-second pitch to a producer -- the seed from which many movies sprout -- is nothing *but* a description of that premise. The Barden character's statement 57 minutes in may not be considered the main premise, but it is the fulcrum on which the movie depends. If you don't buy it, the whole movie crumbles.
There's a big difference between a preposterous premise and a preposterous reaction by characters *to* that premise. In fact, some of my favorite films have absurd premises made believable by characters' reactions. The original Stepford Wives makes a good example: the physical reality of the wives' replacement is impossible (at least in 1975), but *given* that, the actions of the nerdy, insecure men are completely plausible.
Your complaint reminds me of a writing class I once had in which a student read aloud his composition only to have the teacher call it "boring." His defense? "Exactly! Boring was just what I was going for. Don't you see?" Your claim that I have no right to criticize a character's preposterous reaction in any movie that is unworldly or otherwise strange makes no sense to me. Every movie has to earn its audience after the first ten minutes. Expecting me to stay with it after rules of known human behavior are clearly violated is not reasonable, and that's where I head for the exit.
As Roger Ebert once said, "In a movie where anything can happen, who cares what happens?"
After more than 25 years of searching, I can find no evidence that an unrated version was ever released or even exists. The rumor may have started with an entry in Leonard Maltin's movie guide mentioning one -- plus the fact that all of director Stuart Gordon's films were originally released unrated.
I used to sell rare, collectable VHS releases and kept looking but never found an unrated edition nor any listing for one anywhere.
The trailer is a godawful piece of shit that makes this look like Runner Rumner or 21.
Ignore it.