Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

Palomar · 2003-08-07 10:42:17

*We've got a thread devoted to sci-fi movies...I want to create one to discuss any movie.

I purchased "Midnight Cowboy" (1969; it won 3 Academy Awards including Best Picture) on a special-order basis with a local video store last week. I'd heard a lot of scandalous flap about this movie, growing up in the early 1970s.

It stars Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight (who, I recently learned while doing a little Googling, is Angelina Jolie's father). This was Hoffman's next project, after "The Graduate" (another favorite of mine!)...it's ironic that in both movies his final scene involves being in the back of a bus.

I couldn't find it to rent. Rarely do I purchase a DVD of a movie I've not seen before, but this film has garnered such solid praise othat I went ahead and bought it. I wasn't disappointed.

Has anyone else here seen it? I'm wondering what the scenes depicting the rape of Joe Buck's girlfriend and of himself (it seems) by a mob have to do with the movie? What's the tie-in (perhaps other than unconsciously motivating him in his "chosen career" in NYC)? Or was it some sort of recurring dream sequence?

I loved Brenda Vacarro in the film; she was so cute, and had such an on-screen presence, considering the rather minor role she portrayed.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-07 10:51:06

"Blue Velvet" is a pretty good flick along the same lines as Midnight Cowboy.

I recently saw Whale Rider, and it was really well done. A bit of sugar, but on the whole, great movie.

Of course, if one wishes to push the boundaries of good taste, I can think of no better film than "Pink Flamingo".

I'm still scarred. :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-08-07 10:59:26

I recently saw Whale Rider, and it was really well done. A bit of sugar, but on the whole, great movie.

*The best movie I've seen so far this year is "Finding Nemo." Ellen Degeneres did such a fabulous job as the voice of Dory...especially when it came to doing "whalesong."

My husband and I weren't the only adults laughing our heads off. In fact, adults outnumbered kids by 5:1 both times we went to see it (yes...I happily admit we saw "Finding Nemo" in the theater TWICE).

It's a delightful, witty movie that really tickles the inner child. It'll definitely be added to my DVD collection.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-07 11:02:11

*Worst movie I ever saw: "The Turtle Diaries" (stars the guy who played Ghandi...can't recall his name right now. A great actor in a movie lemon). It was so boring and banal I couldn't even finish it.

Best horror film ever: "Hellraiser" by Clive Barker.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Ben Kingsley is the name I was looking for (in "The Turtle Diaries.").

clark · 2003-08-07 11:11:24

Monty Python, The Meaning of Life.

It just rips on religion in oh so many funny ways. Be warned though, it takes a certain type of appreciation to enjoy their humor.

Hellraiser, good choice for horror. Of course Candyman scared the bejuzus out of me. I still can't say the name in front of the mirror for the third time...

If you like dogs, or know people with dogs, or have even heard about an animal referred to as 'a dog', then you will absolutely LOVE "Best In Show"- DVD or video now.

And, if you ever have the opportunity (amost impossible now that it's out of production), see Peter Pan by Mary Martin (TV special). Much better than Disney, IMO.

Uggawug-wha!

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-07 23:42:56

Wow, I haven't seen a non-scifi movie in awhile. Well, I guess Charlies Angels would qualify, but other than that... not really. Hmm... I need to get something.

BTW, Cindy, two comments. I was/am in love with Angelina Jolie. I say it that way because when she hooked up with Billy Bob Thornton she broke my heart.

But she dumped 'em, so she's my gal again now. Plus she adopts, and we really share the same sorts of personal philosophy. She's great.*

Also, the other thing I wanted to say, is that for some reason, Ellen Degeneres was never funny to me. I mean, obviously she does say a few things that are funny to even the most humor-lacking person, but with me, she was mostly hit and miss. I never really figured that out.

*not trying to come off as some stalker-guy, I'm just saying. I'm sure you have a similar thing for like Keanu. :;):

Palomar · 2003-08-08 07:18:52

Josh: Wow, I haven't seen a non-scifi movie in awhile. Well, I guess Charlies Angels would qualify,

*Hmmmm. I wonder why...

Josh: BTW, Cindy, two comments. I was/am in love with Angelina Jolie. I say it that way because when she hooked up with Billy Bob Thornton she broke my heart.

*I really don't know much about either Jolie or Thornton. However, that hookup was the weirdest after Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. I can't deny that Jolie is very beautiful, but (and who cares about my opinion on this, really, since I'm a heterosexual female) Uma Thurman and Liv Tyler are, IMO, two of the most extraordinarily beautiful women of today's cinema. When I saw Tyler on the first "Lord of the Rings" movie, her beauty nearly overwhelmed me. And Uma is the gal I'd like most to look like.

Josh: Also, the other thing I wanted to say, is that for some reason, Ellen Degeneres was never funny to me. I mean, obviously she does say a few things that are funny to even the most humor-lacking person, but with me, she was mostly hit and miss. I never really figured that out.

*I never watched her TV show in the 90s...but then, I don't watch much television. She was fantastic as the voice of "Dory," but I'm not a fan (and not for any particular reason).

Josh: not trying to come off as some stalker-guy, I'm just saying. I'm sure you have a similar thing for like Keanu.

*Yeah. And Johnny Depp...Tom Cruise...Orlando Bloom...Brad Pitt... tee-hee. My husband teases me that I like "the pretty boys."

--Cindy

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-08 13:35:02

Has anyone seen Patton? It made me proud to be a patriot. The flag scene, I shall never forget, moreso after I read the UNCENSORED version of his speech. Personally I equate it with propaganda but it is very excellent propaganda (some of the scenes are fictious according to some writters)

How about spartucus? That movie made me cry.

dickbill · 2003-08-08 15:39:51

How about spartucus? That movie made me cry.

what about the more recent "gladiator". In the first scenes, Russel Crow attacks the barbarians who are depicted almost like cavemen. German officially expressed their discontentment about that Hollywoodian vision of primitive barbarians, saying that they were delicate and raffined people, in fact. Well, maybe not delicate, but at least more raffined than the neanderthals that "Gladiator" represents.
The german are pissed off now, and their response to Hollywood has a a name: it's called "Buffalo soldiers". The same bad guy in 'gladiator' plays in 'Buffalo'. This is NOT a coincidence.
So, now, who is uneducated, not raffined and delicate ?

Palomar · 2003-08-09 05:49:09

German officially expressed their discontentment about that Hollywoodian vision of primitive barbarians, saying that they were delicate and raffined people, in fact. Well, maybe not delicate, but at least more raffined than the neanderthals that "Gladiator" represents.
The german are pissed off now, and their response to Hollywood has a a name: it's called "Buffalo soldiers". The same bad guy in 'gladiator' plays in 'Buffalo'. This is NOT a coincidence.
So, now, who is uneducated, not raffined and delicate ?

*Oh geez. I am so sick and tired of the oversensitive crybabies always picking at the slightest "insult." This says more about the Germans (are they suffering from some sort of unconscious identification with the "barbarians"?) than it does about Hollywood.

Ooooo, "Buffalo Soldiers" is supposed to be insulting to Americans? As far as I know, there were military men here called "Buffalo Soldiers." And paying back a perceived insult is mature and refined?

There was no such thing as a barbarian, right: All human beings from Day 1 shaved their legs/beards every day, drank fine wine and wore nice clothing. Sure.

On a different note: "The Shipping News" with Kevin Spacey and Julieanne Moore is a favorite (2001).

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-09 09:16:15

Cindy, I think it's just that people are begrudged when certain aspects of history are left out or put in to make something more appealing. It's going to happen in every culture.

Look at "The Passion," for example. It's getting a lot of flack for doing things others would prefer be done differently. That sort of thing is inevetable.

Speaking of The Passion, what do you guys think of the whole debacle?

Palomar · 2003-08-09 09:59:04

Josh: Cindy, I think it's just that people are begrudged when certain aspects of history are left out or put in to make something more appealing. It's going to happen in every culture.

*But it gets to the point of being ludicrous. Hell, Walt Disney can hardly grind out a feature-length animated motion picture without some ethnic group howling and fretting that they aren't given enough representation in the film, or are being portrayed incorrectly, or that they were excluded...or, if they are included, something was offensive. I'm sick of this crap. I agree with Ray Bradbury, the sci-fi author; he wrote an essay years ago denouncing attempts by special interest groups to strangle, repress and censor the arts. If the Germans are having a guilt problem over WWII, they should get over it and not take it out on us. It was 70+ years ago, most of the pro-Hitler perpetrators are dead, and the younger generations aren't responsible for what happened back then. And, like Ray Bradbury said, if a certain group of people (ANY group of people) don't like this or that, yadda yadda, about a book or movie or whatever, let them write, produce, direct, etc., their own f*cking movies and books. Amen!

Josh: Look at "The Passion," for example. It's getting a lot of flack for doing things others would prefer be done differently. That sort of thing is inevetable.

Speaking of The Passion, what do you guys think of the whole debacle?

*What is "The Passion"? I guess I'm out of touch somewhere.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-09 10:31:42

The Passion is Mel Gibsons new movie, which tries to accurately portray the crucifixion. Certain groups are finding it offensive, however, and condemning it on the basis that it's anti-Semitic.

Sure, anyone can produce their own movies, but since 90% of all film never sees the national spotlight, people are motivated to try to convince filmmakers to put in their own ideological or historical background in. It's somewhat of a minority syndrom, and no one is immune from it. I might be pissed off if someone dramatized and exaggerated something about myself, and I'm sure you might too.

Not saying I necessarily disagree with you, of course. Most movies are crap anyway. :;):

dickbill · 2003-08-09 11:09:42

The "buffalo soldiers" realisator is australian actually, but it doesn't matter because the movie is not easily viewable. I have 3 theaters in my proximity in New York, maybe 12 rooms, everything is playing from "legally blonde" to "Gigli", but not Buffalo Soldiers. It is playing only in a remote theater, far from my place. Too bad, I'm gonna watch the "Osbournes" instead and that's it. Same for The Passion, If Mel Gibson movie is playing, I'm gonna watch it, if not, back to the Osbournes.

Palomar · 2003-08-09 11:51:23

people are motivated to try to convince filmmakers to put in their own ideological or historical background in. It's somewhat of a minority syndrom, and no one is immune from it. I might be pissed off if someone dramatized and exaggerated something about myself, and I'm sure you might too.

*Not directed at you, Josh; just a few more comments:

Rhetorical question: What's it to the Germans, how 2000-year-old barbarians are portrayed in a movie? This is what I don't understand. Were the "barbarians" in the "Gladiator" movie (I haven't seen it, btw) ancestors of modern Germans? If not, then why the fuss on their part, including trying to "get even" with the U.S.A. with this "Buffalo Soldiers" movie?

Are we going to have to play Cinema Police with every filmmaker in the world, i.e. for example how Japanese portray historical events relative to China and vice versa, etc., etc.?

It's laughable, the Germans trying to spotlight any bad behavior on the part of Americans, whether past or present: There are plenty of Americans who acknowledge wrongs, and they are recorded in our history...unlike the Japanese, who have "erased" the brutality and criminally negligent behavior towards British and Australian POW's during WWII (it "never happened"). I've seen quite a few movies (both theatrical and television) which starkly shows slavery, Africans being chained, flogged, whipped, beaten, made to pick cotton until their hands bleed, etc., etc...and the Germans want to ride up on their high horses, behaving as though Americans have never and can never portray themselves in a bad light and admit wrongs? Give me a break.

Don't take this wrong, Josh, I'm not getting on your case about it; I'm just letting off some steam. F*ck the Germans; I'm sure there's plenty more dirt to be swept off their own back porch.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-08-09 14:48:04

Rhetorical question: What's it to the Germans, how 2000-year-old barbarians are portrayed in a movie? This is what I don't understand. Were the "barbarians" in the "Gladiator" movie (I haven't seen it, btw) ancestors of modern Germans?

No doubt that in Gladiator the movie, the quasi-Neanderthals that we see are germans, or at least the ancestors of the germans. This part of the movie is based on the real wars of the roman armies against the barbarians at the frontier of the empire in year 418.
Russell Crow is ready to fight them, in a shiny armor, with his well trained troops, while the barbarians are getting out of the forest where they were hidding, wearing stinky animal furs, with battles axes closer to stone axes than iron axes. The barbarians are unshaved giants that vocifer in the primitive and gutural dialect of the north. Needless to say that Mr Crow inflicts a severe lesson to those uneducated australopithecus.
This part of the movie is one of the most interesting, but really, does it fit the reality ? In 418 AC, after hundreds of years of contact with the "civilisation", how could the german be so primitive ? But I liked the movie anyway, I wish to see more about this period of barbarian invasions and fights with the dying roman empire.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-09 20:31:48

I believe "The Passion" uses only latin and aramaic - with no subtitles! Impenetrable to most audiences ... especially me!!

Wasn't the emperor in "Gladiator" Marcus Aurelius? He lived from AD121 to 180.
Or is my memory of the movie faulty?

dickbill · 2003-08-09 21:46:34

I believe "The Passion" uses only latin and aramaic - with no subtitles! Impenetrable to most audiences ... especially me!!

Aramaic I could understand, it was the language of the christ, but why Latin ? you mean romanic or roman language ?
But anyway, are we supposed to watch the movie without subtitles ?
At least I can understand the Osbournes:
What the "beeeeppp" are you "beeeep" in my "beeeeppp beeeeeeppp"...

Wasn't the emperor in "Gladiator" Marcus Aurelius? He lived from AD121 to 180.

Absolutely, you're right Shaun, since Marcus Aurelius's son was the naughty Commodus, it was under Aurelius. My quote of 418 AC was from memory of the very beginning of the movie (I remember a 8 in the short text before the film begins, it was likely 180 AC instead of 418 AC). Obviously my memory makes mistakes now. It was also probably my imagination for the neanderthals and the german retaliation in the movie "Buffalo soldiers", even if Commodus is still in that movie. Everybody can make mistakes, sorry.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-10 00:12:22

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!"

Someone with a memory like mine is in no position to be critical of yours, Dickbill !!

As for your question about the latin used in "The Passion", I'm only relaying what I read in a newspaper. All they wrote was that the actors speak nothing but aramaic and latin.
Since latin is a dead language, I suppose we can only go by the written word, as preserved through the centuries by christian monks and priests. Even the pronunciation is necessarily an educated guess, since nobody living today has ever heard a Roman speak in colloquial latin!
But why they couldn't include subtitles for those of us 'classical scholars' whose recollection of Mediterranean languages of the Roman era is a little rusty, I can but guess!

(I think maybe Mel Gibson is engaging in a little too much self-indulgent religious navel-gazing for most people's taste.)

But then again, what do I know? I still like "Meet me in St. Louis" (Judy Garland) and "It's a Wonderful Life" (James Stewart) !!

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-10 00:42:15

Apparently it's getting flack for the Italian, actually. I read that Greek was the most language in use back then.

I don't think you necessarily need subtitles to enjoy a movie, though. I mean, we all know the story, right? And we can pretty much surmise from what's being said what is going on, eh?

What I do find funny, though, is that people tend to think that their interpretion (of biblical texts which are self-contridictory in many instances) is the ?right? one, when even if we did assume that the bible had historical value, we can't really know for certain what really happened. There is actually evidence that Christ was gnostic. But we'll never know for sure because of how history is perverted.

Palomar · 2003-08-10 08:08:52

I believe "The Passion" uses only latin and aramaic - with no subtitles! Impenetrable to most audiences ... especially me!!

Aramaic I could understand, it was the language of the christ, but why Latin ? you mean romanic or roman language ?
But anyway, are we supposed to watch the movie without subtitles ?

*What?? Seriously?! They've made the film in some obscure language many people don't know and won't subtitle it?

I wasn't planning on watching "The Passion."

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-10 09:27:21

No one has done it bloody. Mel Gibson didn't make the movie for release, appparently he did it himself.

But I figure within a few weeks we'll have it ripped by groups, and someone out there will subtitle it, you watch. It'll be a nice challenge to the translation groups.

dickbill · 2003-08-10 10:20:26

But I figure within a few weeks we'll have it ripped by groups, and someone out there will subtitle it, you watch. It'll be a nice challenge to the translation groups.

considering market issues, he has to release the movie in english. Otherwise just a small minority of people will go to see it. Subtitles are very annoying I have to say and even if some passages are in latin or aramean, it doesn't kill to make it in english. Who can afford a flop in the movie industry ?
If absolute conformation to the historical truth was a prerequisite, then the actor playing Jesus should be a jewish or arab/type actor and not a blue-eyed, 6 feet tall Mel Gibson-like for example. We don't even know what Jesus looked like anyway. Since his physical appearance was never described directly, we can infer that he was very average and didn't worth a special description. If Jesus was very tall or very short, somebody (an apostle, a roman etc) would probably have mention it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-10 12:24:33

It's his pet project, he made it off his own money. It's probably not even going to be distributed widely (if at all). He's not trying to make money off of it, he's trying to do his own interpretation (well, not specifically his, the basic roots of The Passion stem from a play- but clearly he thinks it's worth portraying) of the scripture. This is what's making some hotheaded about the issue, because it portrays one Jew as a basic bastard, and no one likes that- could it be remotely possible that there were bastard Jews back then? Oh the horror!

If I were to portray Christ as Gnostic in a movie, people would pitch a fit, too. Only I'm a nobody, so it probably wouldn't be very many people.

Ever see Judas? A very good movie about how Judas betrayed Jesus. Instead of portraying Judas as an evil bastard, he was portrayed as someone who felt that Jesus needed some proding to use his powers.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-17 02:17:46

Yes, Cindy. As far as I know, the original intention was for a 'purist' version of "The Passion", with the script in Latin and Aramaic and no subtitles.
The last I heard (read), a decision about whether or not to provide subtitles has yet to be made. Maybe this represents a weakening in Mel Gibson's resolve (?).

You're right, Josh, that the objections by the jewish community revolve around their ancestors being portrayed as 'bastards', as you put it. Apparently, there's a scene which shows a crowd of jews baying for Jesus' blood.
It's feared that, if such scenes are released, old christian anti-jewish feelings will be rekindled, based on the old "It was the damned jews who murdered the Son of God" logic.

I've never quite inderstood this logic, even from the point of view of a christian (which I'm not anyhow). The basis of christianity is that the Son of God had to die in order that a vengeful God the Father could forgive humanity its sins.
Sooner or later, somebody had to betray Jesus so he could die! Otherwise all of us would still be destined for the fiery pits of eternal damnation. Or at least that's how I understand the story!
If Jesus was destined to die and the jews were destined to ensure he did die, how can the jews (or Judas for that matter) be held accountable?!

But then, I gave up trying to comprehend christianity many years ago!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-08-07 10:42:17

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#2 2003-08-07 10:51:06

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#3 2003-08-07 10:59:26

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#4 2003-08-07 11:02:11

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#5 2003-08-07 11:11:24

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#6 2003-08-07 23:42:56

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#7 2003-08-08 07:18:52

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#8 2003-08-08 13:35:02

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#9 2003-08-08 15:39:51

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#10 2003-08-09 05:49:09

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#11 2003-08-09 09:16:15

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#12 2003-08-09 09:59:04

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#13 2003-08-09 10:31:42

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#14 2003-08-09 11:09:42

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#15 2003-08-09 11:51:23

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#16 2003-08-09 14:48:04

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#17 2003-08-09 20:31:48

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#18 2003-08-09 21:46:34

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#19 2003-08-10 00:12:22

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#20 2003-08-10 00:42:15

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#21 2003-08-10 08:08:52

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#22 2003-08-10 09:27:21

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#23 2003-08-10 10:20:26

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#24 2003-08-10 12:24:33

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#25 2003-08-17 02:17:46

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

Board footer