Jump to content
đź”’ The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... Ă—

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  1. Posted

    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.
     

    4 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Yea, everyone can and should make their own threshold of tolerance for these things.

    But my line is generally: I can keep things separate for the most part, but I think about whether I'm participating in their perversion.  For instance, Miles Davis and John Lennon don't actually write songs about domestic abuse, so it feels safer to enjoy their art -- their real and artist personas feel more separate, and theirart can live on its own. R. Kelly, though, writes "Age Ain't Nothing But A Number." It's right there, and you can't avoid it and it's gross.

    Lennon did write Run For Your Life which is about as open a song as he could write about abusing his wife.

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Quasar Sniffer said:

    Oh, don't get me started on THE WITCH. I love, love, love that movie. And Folk Horror is a genre I really enjoy, one often unexplored. For more Folk Horror Goodness (though certainly not as good as THE WICKER MAN) featuring Christopher Lee, check out....

    And as much as I adore Christopher Lee, Britt Eckland, Roger Moore, and Hervé Villechaize, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is my least favorite Bond film. It could have been so much better.

    Anyway, I definitely consider THE WICKER MAN a horror film, especially because I have a rather inclusive definition of the genre.

    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.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    1 hour ago, tomspanks said:

    Did anyone else recognize the actress Britt Ekland who plays Willow is also Mary Goodnight, a Bond girl from The Man with the Golden Gun?  And guess who plays the main villain, Scaramanga?  🤯

    The weird thing is that I recognize Britt Ecklund but didn't appreciate Christopher Lee with Golden Gun at all. 

    1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Yea the worst Bond movie! (I know a few of you disagree.)

    I finally watched this last night/this morning, and I don't even know. It's just SO weird and unique, I can't even get my head around it. I enjoyed it though, probably because of that. If it was this story but trying to shock or be more frightening instead of just slightly askew, I wouldn't have enjoyed it half as much.

    I definitely do not consider it a horror film, but in looking up some things I see that "folk horror" is a thing and I am curious to see more of this. I'm not a horror fan but these definitely would be more my bag. Here's the definition:

    Folk horror films are typically Horror movies that focus on the fear of pagan folklore by a mostly orthodox Christian society. The heathen traditions are presented as enticing and liberating, in contrast to the puritanism of mainstream religion, but at the same time they degenerate into increasingly darker rituals, involving sacrifices to unspeakable entities, black magic and sexual obscenities.

    This brand of movies takes cues from other horror genres but is fundamentally different. Unlike Supernatural Horror films, folk horror movies very rarely feature actual paranormal events, in order to focus more on the actions of the people rather than on uncanny apparitions. The evil is usually entirely human and the horror is carried out by ordinary members of the society.

    The so-called "unholy trinity" of folk horror films are Witchfinder General (1968), The Blood on Satan's Claw (1971), and The Wicker Man (1973), the latter often cited as the most popular one.

    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.

    • Like 4

  7. Posted

    37 minutes ago, JammerLea said:

    The blu-ray we have is The Final Cut (approx 94 mins) and seems to be the "middle version" according to the info on wikipedia. But I haven't seen the other versions to know how it compares. It seemed to flow pretty well imo, so I guess the chronology helps.

    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?

  8. Posted

    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?

  11. Posted

    49 minutes ago, EvRobert said:

    It has been forever since I've seen Clueless, but isn't Josh going into Law School or just completed his first year of Law School? he's got to be at least 21, right? But then I assumed Cher was 18 and a Senior in High School so it wasn't THAT weird to me. The age thing never bothered me, I grew up hearing stories about how my folks had a 4 or 5 year age difference but the "former step sibling" was always a bit strange to me as well.

    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.

  12. Posted

    8 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Why do you believe this though? If in New Moon, Bella engages in risky behavior after a heartbreak, and every character is like, “What the fuck are you doing?” (Which they repeatedly do), how is Meyers endorsing Bella’s behavior? If she, the author, has her characters questioning what Bella’s doing, then she recognizes that the behavior she is engaging in is wrong. Otherwise, everyone would be like “You go, Bella. Jump off cliffs if it makes you feel closer to Edward! Great idea!” Instead, everyone is like “Pull yourself together. You’re a fucking mess."

    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.

  13. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Well, then let’s just go ahead and throw away all Fiction and Art ever created that’s based on a person’s upbringing, beliefs, and religion. Did Burgess write A Clockwork Orange because he hoped people would emulate Alex? People idolize Travis Bickle (for the wrong reasons) so I guess Taxi Driver is completely devoid of merit.

    Look, I’m not saying the books are perfect or that I agree with everything (or anything) in them. But I feel like most of the criticism about them has to do with a backlash against literature aimed for women rather than anything truly substantive. The same themes that occur on in Twilight are common in a lot of Romance novels, but because Twilight was such a success, it bares the brunt of the animosity. It’s the reason why erotic fiction is looked down upon as being less than even while being a BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY. For many years, Romance Novels were Amazon’s primary money maker. Yet, Romance books and writers are under attack all the time. Once Amazon established itself, it immediately tried to squelch the thing that made it a success. 

    So, is Jacob incel? Probably not that extreme, but yes. Why? Because that’s a character type teenage girls are familiar with! He’s fucking Duckie! A character that people understood 20 Years earlier. These criticisms are precisely why the books resonate with people. 

    I mean, give me a movie and I will nitpick it to death for you. Hell, I do it here all the time. :) 

    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.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    1 hour ago, tomspanks said:

    The guys touched on this a little bit, but I think it deserves more attention. In the beginning of the movie, the daughter goes to a sleepover and the parents have a date night in the house and reminisce about their past. Duchovny tells a story about how on the second night of their honeymoon in Provence, he had to find her a roast beef sandwich or else they weren’t gonna bone for the rest of the trip? First, they’re only on the second night in Provence, so it feels too early to start craving food from home, unless they started their honeymoon earlier at a different location. But secondly, why would anyone crave a roast beef sandwich? It’s not some exotic food that’s hard to obtain and I feel like Provençal beef stew would be an acceptable alternative to satisfy the craving. So I think the natural conclusion is that the roast beef sandwich is some sort of a kink and she needed it or else there wasn’t gonna be any sex for the rest of the honeymoon. 

    Maybe she just really loves Arbys.

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    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.

    • Like 4

  17. Posted

    3 hours ago, SlidePocket said:

    The live shows for Saturday:

    Hercules (1983) with Lou Ferrigno and Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (1987)

    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.

  18. Posted

    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.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    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.

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    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.

    • Like 5

  21. Posted

    2 hours ago, gigi-tastic said:

    So sad news. I just got home from a vet checkup for my darling cat Albus and sadly I had to put him down today. He had two emergency urinary tract blockage surgeries two weeks ago and a new one formed . They were going to keep forming . The vet said I did everything I could and after crying for nearly two hours it's over. I only had him for two years but Ioved him enough for two lifetimes.

    I still have his dad Godric and maybe in the fall  I might go back to his breeder because she has another cat that needs to be placed and gets picked on like Godric did.

    I'm actually feeling better now ( it might be the migraine meds) but I was wondering what you guys turn to that lifts your spirits besides this podcast? 

    Albus in case anyone wanted to see him being silly:

    P1VijcAKRxmbxVAlCUnj9w?viewBox=591,1044&fTAzM5lERDeiB2PyaMjcVA?viewBox=800,600&o

    I'm so sorry for your loss. 

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, taylorannephoto said:

    I'm not equating enjoyable with greatness. I enjoy the fuck out of Josie and the Pussycats but I would never argue for it to be considered one of the greatest movies of all time lol.

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

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

    1 hour ago, taylorannephoto said:

    I just have such a problem with that concept. Like I get it in terms of Stars Wars and Fellowship of the Ring because the trilogy itself is the complete story and therefore the first of each trilogy made the list because then it does grab you into watching all three movies (and then by virtue see the films that actually DO deserve to make the list... i.e. Empire Strikes Back and Return of the King respectively). In terms of Disney, though, Snow White's story concludes at the end of this film and there's really nothing drawing you to then go further into the Disney catalog based on this alone. I find having a place holder movie to represent better movies made by the same company simply because it was the first of its kind to rather defeat the purpose of this list entirely.

    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."

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
×