grudlian.

Can everyone on earth hold off until I get my ticket? Thanks in advance!

Anyone who isn't down for Josie And The Pussycats at any and all times, why?

The cassette tape as a demo makes me ask a couple questions. Was everyone involved in making his demo that out of touch? Or was this meant to show just how poor they were? If this were DJay recording all by himself, I'd get it. He clearly hasn't moved forward since he was younger when demo tapes were still the main thing 10 years earlier (although, I think cassette culture seemed to loom larger, longer in hip hop circles than other genres but certainly not into 2005, right?). He also doesn't know anything about production as evidenced by the microphone scenes. But Anthony Anderson was a professional and seemed to be, at least, not poor. He didn't have his own studio, but he certainly would have known better. Was this a way to imply Anthony Anderson had no confidence? Was this a way to show Anthony Anderson was not well off or knowledgeable in his own job?

I legit laughed out loud at this title. There was an article in The Onion years ago titled something like "tow truck driver has idea for tow truck movie" which I was reminded of by your anecdote. But it also makes me think that, if the life of a pimp is projecting false wealth, D Jay must be doing very badly. Maybe worse than is even put forth in the movie. His car doesn't even have matching panels.

This is one of those situations where I forgot how good Terrence Howard could be. Yes, he's a scumbag (he is a repeated domestic violence offender) and for real crazy (he doesn't believe in math and made up his own math). So, I get why he's kind of ostracized in Hollywood. Then I looked through his filmography after rewatching this and I liked almost every movie I've seen him in. Even in the bad movies, he's not bad (except movie 43 but no one comes off great in that one). He's just a bad person who is also a decent actor. Not that I'd judge anyone for disliking him for his personal life alone

I liked the movie just fine. It's annoying for the movie to kind of throw out that maybe Barnum was progressive (accidentally) when we know he wasn't. You can sanitize his life for a musical. That's fine I guess. Don't make one of the main the messages of the movie "hey hes actually progressive if u think about it!!!!!"

It's not. Not even a little bit. I'd say it's not actively regressive but, in a sense, it kind of is considering they are trying to make an objectively not progressive person even for his time seem progressive.

Thanks. I don't think I deserve it. Paul read my comments making me sound much more sure of my informant than I am. I'll take it though. But I have at least seen (a replica of) the batmobile in person. So, maybe?

As someone familiar with Timothy Olyphant from Deadwood, he's definitely better looking in all these gifs than that. It could be the clothing/hairstyle required by a period western isn't that flattering, but I don't think that's it.

The batmobile in this movie is unlikely to beat Ferrari Testarosa in a race for a few reasons. The car was known to have issues even during the filming of the original run of the Batman show, it was a modified concept car that never made for racing, it had a Ford Galaxie motor, and the afterburner on it was cosmetic and didn't affect performance despite what Rock Star portrays. The original batmobile was, I believe, still owned by the man who made it until 2013 where it was sold at the Barrett Jackson auction. I know the made who made it, George Barris, was at the auction. So, I'm speculating he still owned it which would mean Mark Wahlburg's character didn't own out on the 1980s.

The basics of curling is only one team scores per end. The score is determined by whichever team has the stone (or stones) closest to the button (the middle of the target). If you have one stone closer than the opponents stone, you get one point. If you have two closer, you get two points. There are different rules for mixed doubles curling. It is not nearly as enjoyable to watch.

Also, don't forget your solemn vow to post your death poems

Made in 2001 and set in the 1980s. At this point, I think all movies set in the 1980s pick that time just so they can say "fag" and pretend to get away with it. I know people used homophobic insults more commonly in the 80s than today, but you're movie isn't shooting for ultra realism; you can probably skip this one aspect of the 80s and before.

I agree with all this. I was just extrapolating 1. They had sex and 2. Mark Wahlburg didn't know this was trans. If both those things are true, then what is this movie saying? This is certainly not the movie to be addressing trans issues. I would assume the writers didn't put this or any thought into it. The writers were just "lol chix with dix lol"

Let me clarify because I don't think I'm explaining myself accurately. Trans people don't pull out surprise penises or vaginas. That doesn't happen no matter how much movies and transphobic people pretend it does. But I think the movie heavily implied they had sex. I was certainly under that impression until it was revealed that Tonya was trans. We can't know that for sure they did but I think they want us to believe that. I could be wrong though. That really bothers me because, if they did have sex, Wahlburg didn't know until the next day Tonya was trans. So, either he's to inebriated to consent or she somehow hid her genitals from him (out also implies trans people are pulling out surprise dicks which also bothers me because it doesn't happen). I'd consider that sexual assault. I could be wrong and maybe they didn't have sex. If no one else thinks the sex was implied with them, I'll admit I was wrong. I think Mark Wahlburg's reaction is intended to show the idea that he's disgusted by the idea of trans people. But, it could be interpreted as realization of being a sexual assault victim. I think that's giving the movie way too much credit though. Hopefully, that clears up what I meant.

Also, it furthers the idea that trans people are just hiding their dicks to trick straight people. That totally isn't a thing. I get Mark Wahlburg reacting the way he did because he did have sex with Tonya right? I'm not misremembering that am I? Leaving aside the logistics that they had sex and Wahlburg didn't notice Tonya had a penis during sex, that's her lying to him which qualifies as sexual assault.

I agree the ages of the main characters were way too old. I would have guessed they were supposed to be college aged. I would have guessed 19 years old but they play in bars. So, 21 or 22 would be my guess for the intended ages. I wonder if the woman being 23 was meant to be a subtle hint that being a rock star wife ages you into cynicism. I might believe that if this were a better movie.

If the singer (Brian Beers) is getting fired, why is he even at the auditions for his replacement?

One thing I've been thinking, is Umbrellas Of Cherbourg the earliest romance movie where the female lead had an utterly preposterous job (shop girl for an umbrella store)? Is this where the gallery owner or cupcake baker cliche began?

No, certainly not. But I understand her reluctance to wait around for Guy especially if you're facing almost certain poverty. I also think pushing/ forcing daughters into marriages of convenience for money was significantly more common than it is today. I don't agree with her choices. It certainly doesn't align with my personal beliefs on how relationships should work. I think it's a bit more complex a scenario than being the villain of the story.

Welp, not the first time I wasn't paying enough attention to a movie and been wrong. Forget my second point then.

I guess I go back to teenagers in love often don't last even when one is pregnant (Or sometimes specifically because one is pregnant). I might bee wrong about this but we know Genevieve's father isn't on the picture and I don't think he's dead. Maybe he is but I just assume he left (does the movie say?). So, maybe that's another reason for the mother's thought process.

I think we might also want to consider the situation the mother is in: unwed woman soon to be grandmother supporting both daughter and grandchild and her finances are already not good. And it's still the 1950s. Thing's look vey bad for her and that's the kind of situation you are very unlikely to recover from. Her status is the only thing that's likely to keep them afloat if Genevieve doesn't marry a wealthy man. Obviously, people get by being poor every day. She could sell the jewellery and even store for decent money but, if she does that, that's all the money she gets forever. Job prospects aren't great for formerly well to do single women now. They were worse 60 years ago. She's not just saving herself; she is saving her daughter and unborn grandchild from a life of being scullery maids or whatever.

I kind of agree with you. I obviously don't know much about French culture of the time, but think of it this way. I think we all know teenage love generally doesn't last long no matter how much they claim it's going to last forever. Guy gets your only (underage?) daughter pregnant right before leaving for war. I mean, does anyone expect that relationship to last? Supposing Guy even comes back at all? I don't like the choice the mother made but I guess I get it. Genevieve isn't the only girl in the 1950s to get sold off to the wealthiest suitor to come calling.