- Awards
- 18
What a classic!
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
What a classic!
- Awards
- 27
The only reason I added it to my netflix list is because I'm a sucker for parallel universes and Fake Places.
It's not very comical or very romantic or very spoof-y (because the lead character knows she's in SpoofLand) so I don't think anyone is going love or hate it.
I actually had a few laughs and they did some clever things like "no sex scenes" in RomCom movies.
The obligatory musical scenes were supposed to be cheesy and cringey but really only in the story because the movie wants to have its cake and eat it (which is also acknowledged, of course).
Either way I rather enjoyed watching Liam Hemsworth singing Madonna's Express Yourself but I'm afraid I can't say the same of Jennifer Saunders' painfully unfunny cameo*.
*unless it was supposed to be unfunny - in that case the joke is on me.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 25
I thought it was time I finally got round to watching the infamous 'so bad it's good' train wreck that is Showgirls. And it pretty much lived up to my expectations, so bad, but consequently highly entertaining. Elizabeth Berkley's performance is.....quite something....From her frantic 'sexy' dancing to her reactions to events which always seem like they were from a different scene. This made her rather enigmatic as I rarely had a clue how she felt about situations or the people in them, except when she became overactingly furious. Rarely has an actress taken already really bad dialogue and made it even worse with such fervor. The movie is unashamedly sleazy, gaudy and tawdry, but you just can't look away.
- Awards
- 27
Epic drama.
- Awards
- 18
"Put it in the basket. I'll read it later."
- Awards
- 1
It was overall very mediocre. Also, I can't accept Adam Devine as a romantic lead, even for Rebel Wilson...
Somehow I enjoyed Marcia Cross though.
- Awards
- 27
I wonder if it's possible to successfully spoof the spoof-genre.
- Awards
- 27
- Awards
- 14
The other night I watched THE BEGUILED from 1971 with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page. I had been meaning to see it for a long while. I absolutely loved it. It's a slow dreamy/nightmarish southern gothic tale. Set around the Civil War in a creaky old plantation house. Clint plays a Yankee soldier who finds himself at a seminary for young girls being nursed back to health before he can be turned over to the Confederate soldiers for imprisonment. While recuperating he flirts with and manipulates the girls and their teacher. It all becomes a bit of a pot boiler and ends horribly for Clint.
The film is dreamy and ethereal in parts and then nightmarish in others. There is a subplot with a vague story of an incestuous relationship between the head teacher played by Geraldine Page and her brother who is missing, presumed dead. It's not stated in the film but I got the idea that Page had murdered him and buried him on the property. She seems to equally yearn for him, and be disgusted at the thought of him. This plot line seems to add to the tension in the film. All the women in the house become beguiled by this young handsome soldier. All that repressed sexual tension bubbling over into other things. It's a wonderful film.
After watching I decided to watch the remake from last year starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell in Page and Eastwood's roles respectively. This remake was directed by Sophia Coppola and just seems so utterly unnecessary. On the one hand it seems in parts to be a simple copy and paste remake. On the other hand, it leaves out all the more interesting bits of the original. The incest subplot is completely dropped. The black slave girl from the original doesn't exist in the remake. In the original, Clint and her scenes are the ones in which we learn more about who he is. The slave girl also shows a stronger female role and the film looses something in loosing her. The remake also completely does away with the flirtation of the Yankee soldier with a 12 year old girl. In the original he kisses her on the mouth and the girl becomes innocently infatuated with him.
The remake isn't terrible. It's just not as good. I like Kidman a lot as an actress and she does a great job in her scenes. I just felt that the remake was weaker and was trying in a way to tell the story from a strong female view point. Which isn't really what the story is.
It's interesting that when the original was released the studio didn't know how to sell it, and so it was a flop. They had a film where Clint Eastwood wasn't the winner or the hero. And he's in this film with all these women. There's no real action, it's not really what his fans wanted. So they sort of sold it as a sexy thriller horror, which it is more than.
I would say that the remake had some of the same problems as far as selling it. It was presented in the trailers as much more of a gothic horror than it really is.
The original is a beautiful film in every way. See it if you can, the remake is only ok.
The film is dreamy and ethereal in parts and then nightmarish in others. There is a subplot with a vague story of an incestuous relationship between the head teacher played by Geraldine Page and her brother who is missing, presumed dead. It's not stated in the film but I got the idea that Page had murdered him and buried him on the property. She seems to equally yearn for him, and be disgusted at the thought of him. This plot line seems to add to the tension in the film. All the women in the house become beguiled by this young handsome soldier. All that repressed sexual tension bubbling over into other things. It's a wonderful film.
After watching I decided to watch the remake from last year starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell in Page and Eastwood's roles respectively. This remake was directed by Sophia Coppola and just seems so utterly unnecessary. On the one hand it seems in parts to be a simple copy and paste remake. On the other hand, it leaves out all the more interesting bits of the original. The incest subplot is completely dropped. The black slave girl from the original doesn't exist in the remake. In the original, Clint and her scenes are the ones in which we learn more about who he is. The slave girl also shows a stronger female role and the film looses something in loosing her. The remake also completely does away with the flirtation of the Yankee soldier with a 12 year old girl. In the original he kisses her on the mouth and the girl becomes innocently infatuated with him.
The remake isn't terrible. It's just not as good. I like Kidman a lot as an actress and she does a great job in her scenes. I just felt that the remake was weaker and was trying in a way to tell the story from a strong female view point. Which isn't really what the story is.
It's interesting that when the original was released the studio didn't know how to sell it, and so it was a flop. They had a film where Clint Eastwood wasn't the winner or the hero. And he's in this film with all these women. There's no real action, it's not really what his fans wanted. So they sort of sold it as a sexy thriller horror, which it is more than.
I would say that the remake had some of the same problems as far as selling it. It was presented in the trailers as much more of a gothic horror than it really is.
The original is a beautiful film in every way. See it if you can, the remake is only ok.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
This looks like something I would enjoy. The trailer starts with a bitch slap!
- Awards
- 14
See the original first. Then watch the trailer of the remake.
