grudlian.

Art vs Artist is something I've really wrestled with for a long time. It really came down to the slope of "If I'm not going to support the work of a known rapist like Polanski, would I support the work of a probable rapist like Bryan Singer? Can I never watch a Hitchcock movie again? I don't want to support physical abuse either. Could I watch a Mel Gibson movie? What if the abuser didn't direct it but starred in it? Could I watch a Sean Connery Bond movie? Josh Brolin abused his wife. Can I watch End Game?" And it just kept going like that to smaller crimes and smaller parts of the creative process. Ultimately, it came down to a case by case basis. Some people I can't separate from their crimes and some I can. It's definitely hypocritical of me but I don't know a way to watch another movie without being hypocritical in some way. I certainly wouldn't judge someone for choosing to not watch a Polanski movie and I won't judge them for watching it either. Lennon did write Run For Your Life which is about as open a song as he could write about abusing his wife.

I hate to correct Charlize Theron, but the Total Eclipse Of The Heart video was filmed in the Holloway Sanitorium in Surrey England. There is another connection between the four Prom Night movies. All four of them use the line "It's not who you go with. It's who takes you home."

A friend told me the premise of the movie and I thought they were joking.

Man With The Golden Gun is one of my favorites. It's terrible. It should be the best Bond movie doesn't get anything right. But it was on tv a lot when I was a kid.

The weird thing is that I recognize Britt Ecklund but didn't appreciate Christopher Lee with Golden Gun at all. You might want to check out The Witch. It doesn't quite fit the definition of folk horror you have here but it's pretty close. I was just okay on it but everyone horror fanatic I know can't praise it enough.

It's also on the earwolf website and non-premium Stitcher.

I guess that's my question to everyone else. The 87 minute version is in chronological order as far as I can tell. Right? Am I wrong?

One thing In curious about is the different efforts of this movie. I watched the theatrical edit (87 minutes) but looking on imdb and other places, there is a longer version called the director's cut and a version commonly called "middle version". My main question, because I can't find anything concrete, is regarding the middle version. A lot of places say it's more in chronological order than the theatrical cut. But the theatrical cut is in chronological order as far as I can tell. Has anyone seen the other editions? How is the theatrical edition not chronological?

Just because the person was unconscious doesn't mean they didn't experience being raped.

Can I flag everyone's post for offensive content if they have that baby picture in it?

I always assumed Cher was 16. Her and her friends are all getting their license. I think Paul Rudd is supposed to be law school because doesn't he help their dad with paperwork aat some point? Add me to the list of people who always thought that was weird. Even at the end she says that thing about "not being from Kentucky". So, you know it's weird but don't care? Gross.

I don't remember the specifics but I want to say it was an interview or something from Meyer that made me think that. It might have been from Twilight fans who have twisted her message to suit their own beliefs. To refute your specific story point, you're right that her friends tell her she's acting crazy. Her crazy behavior also ends up saving her life because don't her visions of Edward tell her how to avoid the evil vampires? So, it's a real mixed message at best. That's a big thing. The positives you can find through over analysis have pretty equal negatives throughout.

I think a huge difference between A Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver is that the intention of the creators (which I guess depends on if you think authorial intent matters). I don't think Scorsese or Kubrick (or Anthony Burgess) find Travis Bickle or Alex to be likeable characters. We aren't supposed to identify with them. I believe Stephanie Meyer wants her audience to identify with Bella and I think she's fine with her actions. People who idealize Travis Bickle are misinterpreting Taxi Driver but people taking the wrong message from Twilight are getting exactly what Meyer wanted them to get. That's the difference to me. Dismissing Twilight's flaws as a fairy tale doesn't seem quite right to me. Many fairy tales, fantasies and fables are written specifically to teach us lessons about ourselves or society. Lots of women (and I speculate the majority of Twilight fans) are taking the wrong messages from Twilight. They love Edward or Jacob even pining for someone who is as good to them as Edward. They want to be in Bella's situation. It's perfectly fine for you to enjoy Twilight for what you find there. But I find it reinforces negative, misogynist stereotypes way more than any of its potential positives.

Maybe she just really loves Arbys.

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.

Cam Bert, you are a true hero for sitting through this without having seen any other Twilight movie.

I think this is the Hercules movie I saw as a kid. I remember a local station was airing it and making a very big deal about it airing one time and never again. So, naturally, I begged my parents to tape this once in a lifetime event for me.

Also, am I the only one who laughed at a lot of the jokes in this movie? I laughed so hard at "Nobody wants your boat, dad" and not a single person did in my theater. I don't know that I heard anyone laugh at all except me during this.

I just saw this. I think it's visually nice throughout. Lupita Nyong'o is fantastic in her duel roles. I love that they made I Got 5 On It a horror song. But I have all the same questions everyone else in this thread had. So, I enjoyed the first half a lot. The second half I kept asking myself, "Why?" and that never really let up. Every time I try to answer a question or follow a thread that doesn't quite add up to me, it keeps unraveling. It's really disappointing because, as everyone has said, there's so much attention to detail in so many aspects that to falter at the major themes of the movie feels really lazy for lack of a better word. And I know Jordan Peele isn't lazy. He's put a lot of thought into this and it shows. But then I think about the contradictory elements of what I think it's theme about socioeconomic classes or the nature of life for the tethers doesn't make much sense, it just keeps falling apart for me. Everyone else here has kind of said what I've thought probably better than I can. I might have been able to let some of that slide because a lot of horror movies require you to just accept it's major conceit because you just have to. I don't need to know why Michael Myers is the boogey man. I don't need to know the origin of the It Follows monster. And so on. I just need to know that's how the world works. I think Us is trying to do more than that but failing at it's own conceits. Part of me thinks I would have been happier if the doppelgangers existed for no real reason and were never explained. The best comparison I can make is between Us and Zootopia. Zootopia is about race but it also heavily implies that the people of color are literal carnivorous super predators who must suppress their natural instincts to fit in with society. That's something a lot of racist people tacitly agree to or sometimes openly say. Us is about economic classes but also heavily implying that the lower classes are literal soulless monsters who deserve to be locked away. And so many wealthy people on Fox News talking heads have implied or openly said similar things. I don't think Jordan Peele meant to say that about the poor in this country, but it's still in this movie. So, I don't know, the more I think about this movie, the more I find myself not liking it. I'm mildly curious how I'll feel on a rewatch but I think it will only make intensify my polarization. I'll appreciate the details more but dislike the messiness of it's themes more.

I think that's interesting about this version is it spends a lot of time telling Janet Gaynor how bad the industry is for people, how difficult it is to succeed and basically nothing at all has changed in the industry in the 80+ years since this came out. Every criticism we have about the film industry is so old, and so known, that they were making movies about it when my grandparents were kids.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

The Secret is also available for free to stream on hoopla which is a streaming services some libraries use. So, potentially no need to embarrass yourself face to face by borrowing this.

I would watch this movie.

Hold up. Let's not say things we can't take back.

I agree with this in that we shouldn't have a movie stand in for an entire career. I know Amy and Paul have repeatedly said "Does X need all these movies in the top 100?" but I've consistently thought it was fine if I feel the movie is legitimately one of the top 100 best (keeping in mind that everyone's 100 is different). If that means 10 Disney movies make it, whatever. The top 100 movies isn't the same thing as "100 movies that represent the full breadth of American cinema."