Jump to content

doxrus

Members
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Neutral

About doxrus

  • Rank
    Wolfpup
  1. Okay, the Disguiseys are supposed to be Italian. Pistachio was probably born and raised in the US. But one of them impersonated Abe Lincoln. This means that they'd been in the United States for at least four generations before Grandfather (Harold Gould). What gives? Are there American and Italian branches of the family? Did they come to the US in the early 19th century, then return to Italy late in the century? Incidentally, Harold Gould is only 17 years older than James Brolin, and Brolin only 15 years older than Carvey. Those Disguiseys breed young. But Pistachio is going to be the outlier, at least 47 when he has a kid with Jennifer.
  2. doxrus

    Episode 221. The Hottie and the Nottie

    I've survived through so many awful films, but I couldn't stomach this one after about 15 minutes, and had to turn it off. The misogyny and overdetermination of June's "ugliness" was just too much to bear. And - who the hell holds a torch for their first grade crush, not having seen them since then? Is this guy so pathetic and out of ideas that his best plan is to chase after someone from elementary school?
  3. It occurs to me that the Second Opinion writers on Amazon often have positive, strong personal connections to #HDTHM films and the Team makes fun of them. How is this different from responses of the members Team Fred? So if someone loves Gooby or Xanadu they’re a moron, but not so if they love DDF?
  4. Yes – we’re having parallel debates which can never meet. The minute someone says, “This film means a great deal to me” regardless of its actual artistic merit, or defends the film's (ostensible) flaws as integral to that meaning, there is no response, and the critical discussion is over (You can't say, "No, the film doesn't mean that for you") If we want to meet on common ground, we need to agree: what kind of discussion is this?
  5. Team Sanity is not siding with the mom, or Charles, or anyone. We think the film is crappy, and is not actually presenting any of the themes Team Fred says it does.
  6. Regarding whether Fred is in young Lizzie's mind or an independent entity - Fred does some things that would not have been possible for Lizzie to accomplish. For example, the massive amount of mud Fred dumps on the dining room table. And if we look at young Lizzie's behavior from her mother's point of view - Lizzie is not just acting out or misbehaving, she is seriously disturbed if not completely unbalanced. Yes, her family life isn't the greatest, but it's not as if she's living the life of Sybil or Carrie.
  7. IMAO, there are two possible explanations for June and Jason's apologia of the film. One, that they really believed what they were saying, and only dug in their heels in deeper when challenged by Casey and Tall. I can understand an aggressive and passionate defense of FORBIDDEN GAMES or PAN'S LABYRINTH, but this film? It just doesn't deserve the effort. Or, two, it was all an act, and perhaps as mentioned elsewhere here - all of HDTGM is just an put-on. Really, are we to believe that June has based her entire career on this film? Can we accept that the screenwriters (Davis and Fingleton) and director (de Jong) were somehow able to create the masterpiece that June and Jason describe, when they exhibit nothing even close to it in the rest of their careers?
  8. Team Sanity. I think June and Jason are defending the movie based on its themes, not on the filmmaking. Because they love the themes so much, they're far too forgiving of the film's lousy writing, acting, direction, etc. And they're also giving the screenwriters too much credit for what they perceive the film to be saying. Do they really believe that the writers of HURRICANE HEIST - and not much else - have this much insight into female psychology and gender relations? And when challenged by Paul and Casey on points they can't defend, they just fall back weakly on "It's only a movie."
  9. Do we call him John or Tall now?
  10. After Joe "kills" his father, Pete (Peter Fonda) says they're going to bury Mike in potter's field, which as everyone knows (except maybe the screenwriter), is a graveyard for unknown or indigent people, often with unmarked plots. The next scene is a normal funeral at a regular cemetery, with a standard headstone for Mike. This is not potter's field.
  11. Two possible references/ripoffs by director Coppola to his uncle's APOCALYPSE NOW. After killing his father, Joe has a breakdown, sitting in a motel room in his underwear next to an unmade bed - just like Wiilard. Later, he stares up at the ceiling fan, just as Willard does.
  12. During the showdown with Lou, why does Joe turn on the carousel? He does it quite deftly, barely looking at the power switch, as if he'd been planning it all along, and knows exactly where the switch is located. Is it really that simple and easy to turn a carousel on and off? And if he had wanted to shoot Lou, it would have been much easier when he was standing still, right in front of him, not on a turning carousel surrounded by moving horses.
  13. This film has one of the greatest lines in film history. Late in the story, Uncle Lou talks to his nephew Joe. Their relationship, and Joe's "killing" of his father, have been central themes in the film. Lou says, "Well you know my brother.....[dramatic pause]....[deeper, more dramatic voice]....your father..." Really? He says this as if it's some sort of huge revelation. Does Joe not realize that his uncle's twin brother is his father? Is he confused about how familial relationships work? Even if these lines are meant for the audience, doesn't everyone on the planet know uncles and fathers and nephews work?
  14. This film was shot by the great cinematographer Maryse Alberti, who has done masterful work in features (THE WRESTLER, VELVET GOLDMINE, HAPPINESS) but mostly in docs (TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, ENRON THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM, WHEN WE WERE KINGS, etc.).
×