Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/11/19 in all areas

  1. 9 points
  2. 7 points
    Completely surprised at the indifference Paul and Amy had to this movie. I also disagree that Pakula's direction is "unshowy." There's a lot of interesting creativity in there, and the ability to make clear sense of this story is also terrific, let alone to make it so entertaining. It does lead me to something I was wondering: does being a "true" story affect your views on its greatness (either positively or negatively)? I personally do tend to lean to fiction in movie preferences, in general, though I do think this movie is amazing and one of my favorites of this series so far. We're all used to these AFI movies now, and they all have a certain conceit of drama and I was vastly entertained by this one not having some of those things. Not getting typical drama stuff like Woodward and Bernstein's personal lives or whatnot really made this stand-out among the bunch we've seen.
  3. 6 points
    The adaptation of this novel is so much different from the Japanese movie and from the novel itself and is more bonkers then the American adaptation. I will try my best with this convoluted story line. It does play into Japanese tropes of Lolita complex and repression of outward feelings. The mother persona never leaves the daughter body like in the American adaptation and the mother takes it as her chance to have a second chance at life and do things should didn't do in her previous life. The mother persona in the daughters starts dating the son of the bus driver that caused their car accident and end up dating him!! Knowing that their relationship wont work with her husband while living in her daughter's body. She fakes a split personality disorder and pretends her daughters persona is coming back and taking back the daughters body so she can then date said son and marry him. The husband realizes that the mother persona never left and was faking the daughter persona so they can both move on with their different lives. This becomes the secret they keep not telling the other what the other one knows. Wikipedia did it better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoko_(novel) I love the author Keigo Higashino, since he is one of the few English translated works I could read while I was living in Niigata, Japan. he is a really great murder mystery novelist (Devotion of Suspect X is really good and won many awards and I recommend reading or listening on Audible) and the book The Secret is based on Naoko is based on Japanese surrealism like any Murakami novel. Thanks Paul, June and Jason, I have been listening to you since Burlesque and it helped when I was living in Japan during the 3/11 quake .
  4. 5 points
    All right The Secret let's talk math. When Olivia Thirlby is coming on to David Duchovny she states "You've got a 36 year old wife in the perfect body of a 16 year old." Also at one point it is stated that Duchovny and Lili Taylor have been together for 20 years. Well quick math tells us that they got together when Lili Taylor was 16, and that means she had to have given birth to her while she was 20. This seems fine but it gets more odd when you think of the overall picture. Taylor and Duchovny's first date was to see the cure. The movie I don't think is a period piece which means they went to see a Cure concert in 1997 which is well past the prime of The Cure. They could have been fans but this seems more likely if they had grown up in the mid to late 80s than the late 90s. People can have different music tastes sure. Next, think about the fact David Duchovny is an optometrist. It takes roughly eight years to become an optometrist. So say he did this from 18, that means from 18 to 26 he was in school. Their daughter was born at the start this time. Raising a child is not cheap and neither is med school, so where is all the money coming from? This leads me to the more creepier thought. Is Duchovny suppose to be the same age as Lili Taylor? Is he 36 as well? If he's suppose to be just a year or two older, that means he was a high school graduate to a full grown adult taking an under aged high school girl to a Cure concert and making out with her all night. Major creep territory and yet somehow seems to fit the motif of the movie perfectly.
  5. 5 points
    Just wanted to drop in to say I’m really annoyed I haven’t had time to listen to the episode yet. I watched this fucking thing, and I need catharsis
  6. 5 points
    After The first time she tries to sleep with him I think Duchovny should’ve just called an exorcist. ”I’m glad to see there is an afterlife, I will see you there one day, but the power of Christ compels you.”
  7. 5 points
    As a fan of the early X Files I remember the episode when Mulder and another guy switched bodies, and the fake Mulder tried to sleep with Scully but she handcuffed him to the bed. De ja voux for David Duchovney I guess.
  8. 5 points
    Speaking of that. there’s a part in Daredevil season 2 where Daredevil’s friend and Jessica from true blood are sneaking around Punisher’s old house. It seems abandoned and I think Jessica from True Blood points out a stack of unopened mail. I always thought it would have been funny if Daredevil’s friend turned to her and said “Jesus, I haven’t seen so many letters since I last looked at the alphabet.”
  9. 4 points
    I've been thinking about this movie, and kind of the whole series, since last night. I know Stephanie Meyer wrote a version of Twilight from Edward's perspective but I really want to see a movie from Bella's dad perspective. The last book in particular would be completely insane. His 18 year old daughter gets married, he finds out werewolves exist, 18 year old daughter and son in law adopt a baby who ages 7 years in a three month period. Just imagine what this guy is going through. Also, I checked a timeline of the whole series. Breaking Dawn takes place over the course of four and a half months. This movie in particular takes place starting September 11 (btw, weird day to make Renesme's birth and Bella become a vampire) to January 1. From Maggie Grace to the battle is December 14 to December 31.
  10. 4 points
    Several people have brought up the question of the handwriting at the end. I think this movie is pulling a brilliant Minority Report style ambiguous ending: if you want the handwriting to show that the daughter has gained a new respect for her deceased mother, then you can walk away without thinking about it any further. Stop reading if that sounds nice to you. However, if you want to think about the real consequences of a grown woman who has been trapped in her dead daughter's body, keep reading. So you have just been busted doing drugs by your husband/dad who is having his own emotional breakdown over the question of what is going to happen to his family. You've just had a vision in which you see your own dead body fading out of existence. You now realize there is no going back. You finally understand your daughter's life, and you finally understand that she is gone. What do you do? Do you try to convince your husband to face this fact? He has rejected your attempts to remain a wife, and he has rejected your attempts to find a new life for yourself with this new body. He'll only accept one way out: the daughter's return. Conveniently, this is an outcome in which he: Accepts your life choices Doesn't try to bang you Supports you financially while you restart your life Trying to be honest with him would just result in a bizarre divorce, and he would probably try to have you committed to an institution. So, you convince your hus-dad that the daughter is back. You don't get hit by car, or struck by lightning, or anything. You just wake up one morning and pretend to faint dramatically. He wants to believe you, anyway. And then you carry on with your new life. It's a little tricky that you can't help but use your old-style handwriting, but you pass it off as an homage to your late mother. But at least you can bang that hot photography teacher on the regs.
  11. 4 points
    I have a question about the end of the movie that they didn't bring up on the podcast. Was the reveal that Sam was writing in her mother's handwriting supposed to read only as a sweet tribute to her mother? Or was it supposed to raise doubt about which persona was actually controlling Sam's body? I would say tonally at that point it didn't feel sinister. But it also felt like the only reason to bring up the handwriting earlier in the movie was to go out on an ambiguous ending that leaves the audience guessing. But maybe I am the only one guessing.
  12. 4 points
    I did not watch this movie. I read the summary and was like nope. I am surprised, from listening to the episode, how little attention is given to the teenage girl. Not only do the parents not seem to care she is dead. But also, like, would a teenage girl WANT David Duchovny? Because I remember having crushes on boys and feeling like I couldn't control it. (Memorably I worked at a movie theater slinging popcorn and I had a crush on a co-worker who was tall and dumb and hot. It was so annoying and distracting. Eventually he dyed his hair that terrible blonde and it was such a relief because I didn't have to crush on him anymore.) It would be more interesting if the wife has an emotional connection to the husband but is physically attracted to Just-In or something. But maybe DD doesn't do projects that don't have every character wanting to fuck him? That is all I can figure. The Japanese version sounds much more interesting. ETA: I do agree with June that teenage girls aren't usually (some are) horny. For me, obviously, it was more crush related. Admiring guys and kissing and such. It is also weird that she'd be so confident in her sexuality to wear lingerie and such? I suppose that is the mom's influence but I would just be in crush-love with boys and NEVER speak to them. Obviously, this goes without saying but this would NEVER get made with the genders switched, as June proved.
  13. 4 points
    Absolutely. I can enjoy films about movie star and gunslingers, but I don’t always see myself in those films. This film quietly honors all the bookkeepers and secretaries and people who spend their days typing at a keyboard and poring through documents. After eight hours of staring at a screen, transferring documents from this email to that database, over and over again...it’s kind of nice to see people like me, represented onscreen. It’s like, you don’t have to be a rockstar for your life to have meaning and purpose.
  14. 4 points
    A 90-minute version of Ben-Hur would be exceptionally more enjoyable.
  15. 4 points
    I agree! I was kind of taken aback by their overall apathy. I’ve seen this movie twice now and I liked it even more this time. I also agree that we didn’t really need to get into the nitty-gritty of Woodward and Bernstein’s backgrounds. I never really even thought about needing anything more. I feel like the movie gives us just enough, but doesn’t bog us down too much. I actually don’t think there’s that much more to say. These guys ARE their jobs. That’s what they do — non-stop. I don’t think a dinner scene with them discussing why they became journalists in the first place would really add anything to either the movie or their characters.
  16. 4 points
    So I'm thinking about writing another letter to the boys, but I only want to do it if they want another letter. If they're like, "Wtf is this? Paper!? Gross!" Then I don't want to do it and I'd rather do something else wasteful with my time. This is a difficult decision for me.
  17. 3 points
    I can’t believe I missed this! So bummed. I saw this movie in theaters and distinctly remember when they zoom out to show the epic battle of Cullens vs Others, that it looked like twelve people in a field. The music was so dramatic and every one had their angriest ‘ready to fight’ faces. I burst out laughing and got shushed by most of the audience. They were unappreciative of the humor.
  18. 3 points
    I like to imagine the phone was trying to wash up in Italy for all that lasagna, and then when it realized it washed up in the wrong country it said "Ugh, Mondays" and then got up to the kind of mischief that only a nasty cat like Garfield could get into.
  19. 3 points
  20. 3 points
    Full disclosure: I haven't listened to the episode yet, but when did that ever stop someone on the internet from giving an an opinion? I wonder if someone's opinion of All the President's Men can be affected by their age. I absolutely love this movie - it's one of a handful that I watch about once a year (others include Pulp Fiction, Mad Max: Fury Road, JFK, Apocalypse Now, Lone Star, The Seven Samurai). Maybe not the greatest movies ever, but ones that hit me on a personal level in some way. I was in elementary school when Watergate happened, but I remember the way it absolutely dominated public conversation. I even remember arguing about whether Nixon was guilty or not with my classmates (I was pro-Nixon at the time). My earliest political memory is my mom watching the Watergate hearings on T.V. during the summer. And I vividly remember Nixon resigning, even though I was only 9 years old. My family was camping in Canada, but we ran into friends who told us Nixon was about to quit. We actually gathered around the car radio to listen to Nixon's farewell. It's hard to understate the way Watergate dominated the public consciousness back then. So I wonder if my enthusiasm for All the President's Men partly grows from my coming of age during and just after Watergate. Plus, I was pretty aware of what happened with Nixon, so I didn't need a lot of background about when I first watched the movie - probably when it first aired on TV, maybe in the late 70s or early 80s? I could see where someone growing up later might not engage with the film quite as much. That said, I still think Pakula does a lot with a very minimalist approach. As some have noted earlier, his storytelling is super-economical, but he manages to give the audience just enough to understand what is going on and to be caught up in the excitement and drama. Credit has to go to Redford and Hoffman too. I noticed when I watched the film last week how spot on their performances are for delivering information through tone of voice, expressions, and body language. Regarding nothing distinguishing the two, I can't agree with that, but notice when Ben Bradlee refers to the pair as "Woodstein." I've read that it was a running joke at the Washington Post for staffers to get the two mixed up.
  21. 3 points
    Ugh, this movie was gross. My wife and I watched it last night. We are very open people sexually, both bi and part of the LGBT community. We also have a significant age difference and understand how people can be into that sexually. In the kink community there are all kinds of ways that people explore and challenge power dynamics, with an emphasis on safety and consent. But. Honestly, this movie feels like a screenwriter wanted to make a thoughtful movie about incest but the only way he could get it made is by inventing a Freaky-Friday-meets-Lars-von-Trier premise. It has all the classic hebephile fantasies where a teenaged girl aggressively pursues an older man/her own father. Meanwhile the dad is sexually jealous of her peers. It might have actually been a thoughtful exploration of the subject if they had just dropped the device, had the daughter survive the accident as herself and go through an inappropriate attraction to her father as part of her trauma before leveling out and returning to a healthy relationship. Instead it feels like someone watched The Lover and Lolita a bunch of times and said to themselves, "these are great films but the endings are such a bummer!" So, in summary, fuck this movie. It is very unpleasant to watch, and not really fun in any way.
  22. 3 points
    And then that reminded me of something. I can't remember the last time I looked at the alphabet. I mean I see it all scrambled up on a daily basis via keyboards and the like, but it's been years since I've looked at it A to Z style. The way it was intended to be seen. Everyone, do yourselves a favor and write the alphabet out beginning to end, take a long look, and remember the good old days before we had all these gadgets that make you think the alphabet starts with Q.
  23. 3 points
    I agree that Amy and Paul seemed to have a strange view of this film. First, the claim that there's not enough to distinguish between Woodward and Bernstein is ludicrous. For starters, so much of their personalities are revealed with hair, makeup, and wardrobe, without a word of dialogue. Woodward is the perfectionist, with his hair immaculately in place, his shirt perfectly pressed, and his tie in a more perfect knot than I've ever been able to achieve in my life. Bernstein is the creative, whose extremely wrinkled dress shirt suggests he only wears one because he has to, and whose long hair suggests he feels some connection to 60s counter-culture even as he managed to work a desk job through it all. When they deal with people, either in person or on the phone, Woodward is a bit tense and wants to be precisely understood and to precisely understand the other party. Bernstein is loose and doesn't particularly care what the other party thinks of him as long as he gets what he wants. Woodward's manner of reasoning is much more deductive, where he'll reach a conclusion only if the facts lead there. Bernstein's reasoning is more inductive, where he's willing to make a leap of logic based on patterns and assume that as fact, which ends up fine in this situation because his instincts were always correct. And yeah, sure, Woodward is a bit WASPy, and Bernstein is clearly Jewish, but if that's the only thing you can point to in order to distinguish them, I don't understand what movie you were watching. I don't see how clearer they could make the differences between these guys without hitting us over the head with it (and some might argue that they do hit us over the head with it, like in the scene where Bernstein has his notes on napkins and tiny pieces of paper while Woodward disapprovingly chides him). This is an interesting question. I think at the time, and possible up to today, the fact that this actually happened makes it more interesting, and thus affects it in a positive way. I can see this changing over time for a couple of reasons, the first of which is a diminishing knowledge of the event. Now, as a product of a rural American public school, I know no history, and the only name from the administration mentioned in the film that I knew was Nixon himself. (This is the second time I've seen this film, and it's the second time I had to google whether Gordon Liddy is the same person as Scooter Libby. Answer: He's not.) But I still knew the broad strokes of the scandal: Nixon's men attempt to burgle the DNC, Nixon was aware of the cover-up, and he had to resign the presidency as a result. In 50 years, it's possible that viewers will know as much about the Watergate scandal as I do about the Teapot Dome scandal (which I assume had something to do with teapots...and domes). The term "Watergate" will no longer be synonymous with Nixon, but just with some type of scandal, or even more diluted, simply some type of controversy (I read that applications to journalism programs skyrocketed after this film, so I suppose it's those bozos we have to blame for idiotically using -gate as a suffix for everything). And the second reason I fear this might change over time is due to the declining civility in politics. I can imagine a 16-year-old who grew up indoctrinated in Trump country watching this film and thinking, "So Nixon sought to use any means necessary to bring down his political rivals, and then lied about it and covered it up. Isn't that what the President is supposed to do?" After all, Fox News would (and does) forgive Trump for far worse than what Nixon did. (Speaking of Fox News, I was figuratively yelling at the podcast when Amy and Paul were discussing 1976 films and neglected to mention the other film on the AFI list, Network.) Now, judging by the Letterboxd reviews I read, I'm probably not as high on this film as others on this board, although I have it in the top third of AFI films so far. I can see the argument that it's a vanilla in a freezer full of more novel flavors, but that's overlooking the fact that for a vanilla, the taste and texture are perfect, and who wouldn't want that perfect vanilla to have a place in their freezer? For those who say take it or leave it, I'd happily take it.
  24. 3 points
    I 100% think that would make this a worse movie.
  25. 3 points
    The movie didn't quite grab me emotionally upon this most recent rewatch, but it's clearly well-made, and I was impressed by a lot of stuff in it. I certainly was not bored; one of the most impressive things is how the movie is so emotionally flat and heavily detailed but still feels dramatically propulsive. I think a lot of the subtle choices in the acting and filmmaking help give us that sense. I also have to vote yes because it's so clearly influential, and as a plus it seems to have influenced actual GOOD movies rather than a lot of copycat bad ones. Just off the top of my head, I'd cite Zodiac, Spotlight, and The Post as obvious tributes to All the President's Men. There's something in here that has inspired great filmmakers. Got to give some credit for that. I also have a sense that this movie probably gets better the more you watch it, as you notice more details that add to the whole.
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-07:00
×