• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

The "I'm watching/just watched *movie title* thread....

Started by PhantasticSanShiSan, September 26, 2008, 04:58:26 PM

herbalizer

Just for the record Mann didn't direct The Aviator and the song from Silence of The Lambs is called :"Goodbye Horses(Crying Over You)". Not sure who sang it though.

Sardondi

Just watched a couple of trailers for Spaz Blurman's latest beautifully colored and sparklingly polished St. Bernard turd masquerading as a movie. He first came to my attention, as I guess he did for most folks, with the drag queen cabaret that was Moulin Rouge in 2001. I was astounded to learn he was straight. (He is, right?) That movie was watchable for the same reason anyone would watch Richard Simmons or Tammy Faye Bakker: the sheer jaw-dropping astonishment of how shameless was the narcissism of its moving force.

But to this latest Gatsby, just who is the man's audience? Retired English majors? Oops, missed bad there, Baz. Gay teen boys? Wrong again. Here's a flash, Mr. Luhrmann: I know it doesn't seem so from hanging out in London, NYC and San Fran, but there really aren't nearly enough gays much less gay teen boys, to recoup the movie's $127 million budget. Well, that's the amount the studio admits to. What was it really? $140 million? $175 million? More?

It's not like the bar was that high. The 1974 version was a true embarrassment. It also seemed aimed at the girls (and in those days what was still a mostly closeted gay audience) with poster boy Robert Redford as the Old Sport himself. Mia Farrow as Daisy was a perfect ice queen, sexy only to Ralph Lauren...well, if she was standing next to an 18-year-old boy naked except for the tighty-whiteys meant for a 4th grader that he had been jammed into with a crowbar and a No. 2 can of Crisco. Bruce Dern was Daisy's vile psycho husband, Tom: they got the psycho part right, even if Dern sounds like he never came within 3000 miles of West Egg. And Sam Waterston played the callow Nick. If you want to know what Waterston sounded like before his tongue got paralyzed or he started losing parts of his jaw to radiation therapy/cancer surgery*, see this version. It was such a terrible movie. If anyone would like to shut Redford up when he opens his mouth about some social or political issue, just crank up this stinker: it is irrefutable proof he never was and never will be an actor, and just might shame him into permanent silence. I mean he is bad.

But Luhrmann' Gatsby could do something that maybe not even Mr Toothy Smile couldn't in 1974 - make Redford's Gatsby watchable. Mostly it's the ridiculous insistence on shoehorning contemporary music into a period piece movie. Why in hell go to all that trouble costuming and designing sets to be so accurate for the 1920's and then soundtrack it like you're sitting in your daughter's Toyota?! Huh? Baz has these massive, intricate scenes, with hundreds of extras all decked out in gloriously expensive outfits - I mean, he's got people doing the Charleston as military-grade munitions stand in for fireworks for cripes sake - and then he's scoring it with that great 1920's artist, Beyoncé. Sheesh. It's like Autotuning a movie about Mozart.

But then as far as I can tell from the trailers, it's the usual soap opera "acting", in which Leonardo DiCaprio, to steal Dorothy Parker's great line about Katharne Hepburn, delivers a performance "that runs the gamut of emotions, from A to B". But Leo does get to act really, really mad, one time. And because the rest of the time he's so cool and all, it means he's really, really, like, deep, you know? That is "acting", let me tell you.

Oh crap, this looks like a stinker of a movie.


* No kidding, has anyone else noticed Waterston's "sore tongue" sound that he's had for a decade or so? He's speaking like he's got several stitches in the side of his tongue, or like perhaps part of his mouth are paralyzed or missing. I really do wonder if he's had some cancer, and if radiation or surgery has resulted in a loss of tissue or he has less than full use of his tongue. Maybe a stroke? Listen to him in any movies or tv up through most of the 90's, and then listen to him for the last 10-15 years or so. He's definitely got a problem, as well as being hoarse, thin-voiced and weak sounding.   

Quote from: Sardondi on May 11, 2013, 10:39:15 PM
Just watched a couple of trailers for Spaz Blurman's latest beautifully colored and sparklingly polished St. Bernard turd masquerading as a movie. He first came to my attention, as I guess he did for most folks, with the drag queen cabaret that was Moulin Rouge in 2001. I was astounded to learn he was straight. (He is, right?) That movie was watchable for the same reason anyone would watch Richard Simmons or Tammy Faye Bakker: the sheer jaw-dropping astonishment of how shameless was the narcissism of its moving force.

But to this latest Gatsby, just who is the man's audience? Retired English majors? Oops, missed bad there, Baz. Gay teen boys? Wrong again. Here's a flash, Mr. Luhrmann: I know it doesn't seem so from hanging out in London, NYC and San Fran, but there really aren't nearly enough gays much less gay teen boys, to recoup the movie's $127 million budget. Well, that's the amount the studio admits to. What was it really? $140 million? $175 million? More?

It's not like the bar was that high. The 1974 version was a true embarrassment. It also seemed aimed at the girls (and in those days what was still a mostly closeted gay audience) with poster boy Robert Redford as the Old Sport himself. Mia Farrow as Daisy was a perfect ice queen, sexy only to Ralph Lauren...well, if she was standing next to an 18-year-old boy naked except for the tighty-whiteys meant for a 4th grader that he had been jammed into with a crowbar and a No. 2 can of Crisco. Bruce Dern was Daisy's vile psycho husband, Tom: they got the psycho part right, even if Dern sounds like he never came within 3000 miles of West Egg. And Sam Waterston played the callow Nick. If you want to know what Waterston sounded like before his tongue got paralyzed or he started losing parts of his jaw to radiation therapy/cancer surgery*, see this version. It was such a terrible movie. If anyone would like to shut Redford up when he opens his mouth about some social or political issue, just crank up this stinker: it is irrefutable proof he never was and never will be an actor, and just might shame him into permanent silence. I mean he is bad.

But Luhrmann' Gatsby could do something that maybe not even Mr Toothy Smile couldn't in 1974 - make Redford's Gatsby watchable. Mostly it's the ridiculous insistence on shoehorning contemporary music into a period piece movie. Why in hell go to all that trouble costuming and designing sets to be so accurate for the 1920's and then soundtrack it like you're sitting in your daughter's Toyota?! Huh? Baz has these massive, intricate scenes, with hundreds of extras all decked out in gloriously expensive outfits - I mean, he's got people doing the Charleston as military-grade munitions stand in for fireworks for cripes sake - and then he's scoring it with that great 1920's artist, Beyoncé. Sheesh. It's like Autotuning a movie about Mozart.

But then as far as I can tell from the trailers, it's the usual soap opera "acting", in which Leonardo DiCaprio, to steal Dorothy Parker's great line about Katharne Hepburn, delivers a performance "that runs the gamut of emotions, from A to B". But Leo does get to act really, really mad, one time. And because the rest of the time he's so cool and all, it means he's really, really, like, deep, you know? That is "acting", let me tell you.

Oh crap, this looks like a stinker of a movie.


* No kidding, has anyone else noticed Waterston's "sore tongue" sound that he's had for a decade or so? He's speaking like he's got several stitches in the side of his tongue, or like perhaps part of his mouth are paralyzed or missing. I really do wonder if he's had some cancer, and if radiation or surgery has resulted in a loss of tissue or he has less than full use of his tongue. Maybe a stroke? Listen to him in any movies or tv up through most of the 90's, and then listen to him for the last 10-15 years or so. He's definitely got a problem, as well as being hoarse, thin-voiced and weak sounding.   

I don't know about all the depth of analysis you went into, but yeah, when I first saw the trailer I said to myself 'Now here's a fucking joke I won't mind missing".

Did "Spaz" do Romeo and Juliet. (Yes, I'm that fucking lazy. and drunk.)

Quote from: herbalizer on May 11, 2013, 05:12:21 PM
Just for the record Mann didn't direct The Aviator and the song from Silence of The Lambs is called :"Goodbye Horses(Crying Over You)". Not sure who sang it though.

Best part of the movie. Q Lazzarus.

Buffalo Bill Dance Goodbye Horses Silence of the Lambs

I had no intention of seeing the film (and a former English-major I am).  I don't like it when a director makes the entire thing all about his vision.  In the same way, it annoys me how Spike Lee calls his films "joints":  Do the Right Thing (a Spike Lee joint).  What, everybody in film history has called their work a film, but that's not good enough for Spike, so he calls it a joint.  Am I missing something?

Similarly, Luhrmann has his dirty fingerprints all over everything he does.  I wonder if the actors feel they can bring anything of their own to such a production, or are they merely conduits for Luhrmann's epic vision?  For me, the primary issue comes down to the music.  It pissed me off when Sophia Coppola played Bow-Wow-Wow music in a period piece about Maria Antoinette.  I don't want to hear hip-hop music in a movie about the 1920's.  And I get that artists are supposed to push the boundaries, that the type of music Jay Gatsby and company would have been listening to back then was certainly getting under the skin of the older generation, that the music of the 1920's -- at the time -- seemed dangerous, wild, a corrupting influence. 

I guess I am hopelessly old school.

ziznak

I watched  Greers (i wanna say gay but I'll just say) hokey movie "sirius" earlier. I also watched all of the "magical egypt" series recently.  Been on a real psuedo kick lately and I HAVE BEEN NOORY FREE FOR about 4 days??? i think...

Eddie Coyle

 
        The Baader-Meinhof Complex, a 2008 German film...that thankfully Hollywood had nothing to do with. It wasn't Weinstein-ed into a radical chic film with Johnny Depp or Di Crapeeo or Jennifer Aniston as Ulrike Meinhof or something. Little to no romanticism of the Red Army Faction, which again, would be unthinkable if Hollywood were involved.

           Terrific film.

       


Quote from: onan on May 17, 2013, 07:00:01 PM
Star Trek Into Darkness... go see it.
Booked seats at IMAX for Sunday afternoon.  Where does it rank in the Trek movie catalogue?


onan

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on May 17, 2013, 08:55:56 PM
Booked seats at IMAX for Sunday afternoon.  Where does it rank in the Trek movie catalogue?


tough question. Since it is the second reboot it in some ways is neck and neck with 2 and 3. In some ways Into darkness has some feel of TV instead of movie (according to my wife). It is interesting how Abrams has taken pieces of the original story line and made them fit differently in this timeline.


This Benedict Comberbatch guy... does a better job than his similar counterpart did 30 years ago (no offense Ricardo). Zachary Quinto also was able to make spock even more spock than Nimoy... I say this because of one small interchange with Quinto and Bruce Greenwood very early in the movie.


Even though it is called Into Darkness and has been compared to Nolan's The Dark Knight it isn't that dark... it is a ride, however. It has been a long time since I have been at a movie where no one has gotten up to use a bathroom. Very few people if any left their seats. There were some teens two seats down from us with cell phones... I really expected that I would have to become the old crotchety bastard to stop their cell phone usage... but I didn't... not one cell opening... I was doubly pleased.


Hell Abrams even brings tribbles into this story.

Sometimes real life gets to be too intense and only a 'Carry On' movie will do. Tonight it was 'Carry On Cruising', just as daft as the day it was released, but no one died, I didn't have to think, and I could sit back and laugh at the dopey double entendres.


I intend  to see 'Into Darkness' as soon as the crowds clear. Can't wait.

CampsieNP

Just saw Killer Joe on video. I really liked it. Black comedy. Creepy funny. Matthew M. very good as Killer Joe.

Day of the Jackal.  Okay, but the editing was surprisingly sketchy at parts.  A little dry.

Gonna balance it out with a little Night of the Juggler next.

Eddie Coyle

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 29, 2013, 11:50:41 PM

Gonna balance it out with a little Night of the Juggler next.
Cliff Gorman was great at playing sleazy Noo Yawkers.

          Watched the final hour of one of my long time favorites, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, after the Blackhawks-Red Wings went final. Very underappreciated in the Eastwood canon.

Sardondi

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on May 30, 2013, 12:08:35 AM...Watched the final hour of one of my long time favorites, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, after the Blackhawks-Red Wings went final. Very underappreciated in the Eastwood canon.

Heh heh - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, - "Eastwood can(n)on". He's sly tonight folks!

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 29, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
Day of the Jackal.  Okay, but the editing was surprisingly sketchy at parts.  A little dry...
I suppose it's a sign of my age, but it's the "dryness" of Jackal that I love. The unhurried building toward a climax. I appreciate that so much more than these damn 4-shots-per-second visual overloads that pass for movies. Look how the scenes just slowly unfold instead of being thrown at us. I love that movie, the moreso because of the meth-freak attention span which movies are aimed at today.

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on May 30, 2013, 12:08:35 AM
       Cliff Gorman was great at playing sleazy Noo Yawkers.

          Watched the final hour of one of my long time favorites, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, after the Blackhawks-Red Wings went final. Very underappreciated in the Eastwood canon.

I always confuse the endings of that and The Gauntlet; TAL is the one with the big gun, right?  And TG is the Bus?

Quote from: Sardondi on May 30, 2013, 12:12:11 AM
Heh heh - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, - "Eastwood can(n)on". He's sly tonight folks!
I suppose it's a sign of my age, but it's the "dryness" of Jackal that I love. The unhurried building toward a climax. I appreciate that so much more than these damn 4-shots-per-second visual overloads that pass for movies. Look how the scenes just slowly unfold instead of being thrown at us. I love that movie, the moreso because of the meth-freak attention span which movies are aimed at today.

Hey, don't get me wrong - I agree with your POV.  I was gonna say that the film views just like the book reads, but I didn't want to come off like some kind of art snob/arts knob.  There is a definite lack of "Cusslerism" in the film (That's good, right?  8) ).  Edward Fox was awesome.

Sardondi

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 30, 2013, 12:23:13 AM
Hey, don't get me wrong - I agree with your POV.  I was gonna say that the film views just like the book reads, but I didn't want to come off like some kind of art snob/arts knob.  There is a definite lack of "Cusslerism" in the film (That's good, right?  8) ).  Edward Fox was awesome.
I love Edward Fox is everything. It's hard to believe he's now well into 70's. Fantastic caper flick, in which Fox has a minor but great role, is Sexy Beast, starring Ben Kingsley, Ray Winstone and Ian McShane. Almost every one of the characters in it scared the crap out of me. Ben Kingsley's psycho turn will have you gripping your chair arms. But Fox plays this blueblood banker who meets this master villain Ian McShane at some uptown orgy. McShane, who plays his bad guy with that hooded eyelid look that makes me shiver, sees Fox at the bar and simply says "Men...or Women?", and the effete-looking Fox says "Oh, definitely". So McShane takes him up on it. GAAAAACK! But then Fox turns the crooks on to a huge bank takedown. And of course he pays for it in the end. But a fantastic frightening movie that shows you that bad guys are called bad guys for a good reason.

Eddie Coyle

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 30, 2013, 12:16:52 AM
I always confuse the endings of that and The Gauntlet; TAL is the one with the big gun, right?  And TG is the Bus?
Yep, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot has the big gun...and Jeff Bridges in drag looking disturbingly like one of the older sisters of a kid I hung around with in 1985.

Quote from: Sardondi on May 30, 2013, 12:12:11 AM
Heh heh - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, - "Eastwood can(n)on". He's sly tonight folks!

I suppose it's a sign of my age, but it's the "dryness" of Jackal that I love. The unhurried building toward a climax. I appreciate that so much more than these damn 4-shots-per-second visual overloads that pass for movies. Look how the scenes just slowly unfold instead of being thrown at us. I love that movie, the moreso because of the meth-freak attention span which movies are aimed at today.
You caught me. Try to be subtle once...and still busted. And I also am a fan of Day of the Jackal, and by today's standard, I can see how it would be perceived as a tad tedious. Since I find that subject and era fascinating, I could watch a movie of people reciting Forsyth's book backwards and still be enthralled. The 1997 bastardization remake is why I pray to whatever God that will listen for a plague to hit Hollywood.

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on May 30, 2013, 12:51:49 AM
   Yep, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot has the big gun...and Jeff Bridges in drag looking disturbingly like one of the older sisters of a kid I hung around with in 1985.
          You caught me. Try to be subtle once...and still busted. And I also am a fan of Day of the Jackal, and by today's standard, I can see how it would be perceived as a tad tedious. Since I find that subject and era fascinating, I could watch a movie of people reciting Forsyth's book backwards and still be enthralled. The 1997 bastardization remake is why I pray to whatever God that will listen for a plague to hit Hollywood.

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

If I had one issue with the original is that I like a little more character development (kind of the majority of the "dryness", and the editing - look at the scene where Fox leaves the woman's estate.  However, you never know exactly what print you are getting to see with NetFlix.  As far as pacing, well, have you ever tried to explain to someone under 30, who isn't a film or genre buff, why King Rat is an awesome film?

Quote from: Sardondi on May 30, 2013, 12:48:23 AM
I love Edward Fox is everything. It's hard to believe he's now well into 70's. Fantastic caper flick, in which Fox has a minor but great role, is Sexy Beast, starring Ben Kingsley, Ray Winstone and Ian McShane. Almost every one of the characters in it scared the crap out of me. Ben Kingsley's psycho turn will have you gripping your chair arms. But Fox plays this blueblood banker who meets this master villain Ian McShane at some uptown orgy. McShane, who plays his bad guy with that hooded eyelid look that makes me shiver, sees Fox at the bar and simply says "Men...or Women?", and the effete-looking Fox says "Oh, definitely". So McShane takes him up on it. GAAAAACK! But then Fox turns the crooks on to a huge bank takedown. And of course he pays for it in the end. But a fantastic frightening movie that shows you that bad guys are called bad guys for a good reason.

Seen it. Great understated and under-the-radar gangster flick.  Looking forward to seeing 44 Inch Chest in the near future.

And yeah, Fox is was of "those guys" for me as well.

Eddie Coyle

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 30, 2013, 01:17:26 AM
.  As far as pacing, well, have you ever tried to explain to someone under 30, who isn't a film or genre buff, why King Rat is an awesome film?
All of my conversations involving pop culture( whether it film,tv,music) with people under 30 are hazardous to my health...and theirs. Like with King Rat. If they even know who George Segal is at all, it would be a hazy response of "the old guy from Just Shoot Me?'

         Those last three words summing up my general feeling about the interaction.

Eddie Coyle


       And get your minds out of the gutter, I don't mean those climaxes :-[

          I guess the three I'll put forth will only confirm what a miserable bastard I am. Happy endings stink(again, minds out the gutta!) and I prefer somebody meeting a gruesome end due to cupidity or stupidity.

       (1) The Mechanic. Charles Bronson's "I taught you everything you know, but not everything I know" twist, with Jan Michael Vincent being blown up after assuming victory.

       (2)  The Long Good Friday. Bob Hoskins realization of his sealed fate whilst being held at gunpoint...brilliantly filmed.

       (3) Henry:Portrait of A Serial Killer. The suitcase by the side of the road eliminating that sinking feeling that we were going to get a Hollywood ending. Perfectly understated.
     

Sardondi

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on May 30, 2013, 01:28:53 AM...Like with King Rat. If they even know who George Segal is at all, it would be a hazy response of "the old guy from Just Shoot Me?'...
"George Segal - isn't he that good-looking Jewish kid that Mortie sent around along with that good-looking goy kid...oh, what was his name?...Warner Beatty or something? Anyway, Mortie wanted to see if one might be right for that new spy thing that Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli are casting. Right now they're leaning toward some unknown Scottish actor. I don't know him but he's supposed to be a big muscle-type guy with tits like Victor Mature. He did some body-beautiful stuff in the 50's, but he's about to go bald and he's got a brogue as thick as a brick. So I don't think there's any way he'll get the spy lead. Maybe a villain. But hey, this Segal kid is young and awful good-looking, so he might have a shot, you know, since Harry is producing. I can see Segal saying the lines that are gonna make him famous: 'I'm Bohm...Hymie Bohm. Shalom.' Goosebumps! Let's get a steam."

Sardondi

Just saw a 1970 movie that has, I'm afraid, a very limited audience but is still a magnificent spectacle : Waterloo. It is an astonishing piece of moviemaking by Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk and produced by Dino De Laurentiis. It used over 25,000 actors and extras from the Russian military, all clad in the luxuriously rich uniforms of the Napoleonic era, and some 7,000 horses, which were filmed in single panoramic shots.

As a movie it has much to be desired, since it seems more a history lesson aimed at cramming every little famous factual tidbit into it rather than a story with characters and conflict. The movie somehow only lasts a little over 2 hours. Rod Steiger is Napoleon, whom he plays with his typical absence of subtlety, simply chewing up the screen with abandon. Christopher Plummer is a more handsome than historical Wellington. And Orson Welles is onscreen for a mere 3 minutes early on as the restored Louis XVIII, who must flee Paris before his bottom is well settled in the throne. They're all fine in their roles, but it hardly matters, since the battle itself is what the movie is about.

It feels like the screenplay is nothing but an exercise in how to tick off a list of Historical Facts about the battle rather than develop plot or character. For the history nut or Waterloo aficionado this is just fine. These are likely the only people interested in Waterloo today. There's plenty for them, since the movie is far more accurate than the usual Hollywood attempt at historical war epic. The basic history is good, but the locations are excellent. The battlefield (in Russia) is a perfect topographical and geographical match. Great care was taken with the replicas of the Hougemont chateau and La Haye Sainte; they were so good that they look like the very place itself must have on June 18, 1815. The way the battle events unfold in cofairly correct order, and the major quotes attributed to participants get their due. Particularly important to Waterloo experts will be the gloriously rich uniforms used by armies of the day. As far as I could tell these were accurate for the most part.

But there is something for a fan of movies too. As a period piece, these same rich military uniforms are breathtaking to see from scene to scene. Incredible variety and bright, bright colors of the uniforms are stunning. The sheer sizer and scale of the production is just amazing. The camera pans from one side of the battlefield to the other, covering more than a mile of battlefield, all of it occupied by particular formations of troops. There are massive shots of marching troops, the columns extending for almost a mile in the distant haze.

It's just not possible for this movie to have been made anywhere but Soviet Russia - it's just too big. Then the expense just boggles the mind. Just the uniforms alone must have been a staggering sum. even if you don't watch the whole movie, watch some of the massive scenes to get an idea of what huge scale we're talking about. There's no way it could ever be done today - well, at least not with live action. Using extras and actors, not to mention thousands of horses, and masses of period weapons and artillery on this kind of scale, IMO would cost something in the neighborhood of $500-750 million to remake in the West. Simply impossible. Here's the movie: The Battle of Waterloo Movie (1970) 

Quote from: Sardondi on June 05, 2013, 09:20:25 AM
...Rod Steiger is Napoleon, whom he plays with his typical absence of subtlety, simply chewing up the screen with abandon.

Hearing descriptions of Steiger's acting style never gets old.

Sardondi

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on June 09, 2013, 12:25:07 AM
Hearing descriptions of Steiger's acting style never gets old.
Such an incredible ham. He covered it up by claiming his devotion to the "method" of Stanislavsky; but that was just a dodge so he could bug his eyes out and tear his hair.

Sardondi

Bernardo Bertolucci's 1900 from way back in 1976. And it burns! All 5 hours 15 minutes of it. About as subtle as a ton of bricks, this movie is to politically motivated films what Savaronola was to the art of gentle persuasion. Bertolucci intended this a paen to the peasant and Communism. Mostly it's a diatribe against those who have money - except the good people who have money, like actors and directors. Of course all the reliably hypocritical leftist actors and actresses were on board, like Donald Sutherland (he had been on the "Fuck The Army" Tour with Jane Fonda just a few years before this), Robert DeNiro, Gerard Depardieu before he discovered food, even a couple of Old Reds like Sterling Hayden and Burt Lancaster, plus a bunch of French and Italian Communists.

It's supposed to be this magnificent, sprawling epic of Italy in the 20th century (up until 1976). It's mostly just an interminable cartoon of the horrible, terrible, not very good landowner fascists and how they were mean to the heroic, noble, wonderful people of the land. If this is an accurate depiction of the Italian people of the last century, then they were a cowardly, greedy, stupid, ignorant bunch of near-simians who could act only when they were part of a faceless mob; who were completely without the moral courage to resist the action of any group, and incapable of independent thought.

Bertolucci is supposed to be this artiste, also the director of the incredibly self-indulgent Last Tango In Paris and surprisingly honest The Last Emperor. But I found out his main job in 1900 is to be a recruiter for the Communist Party. And he does a terrible job. Because this is a pile of crap. In it we learn such things as the true owners of a piece of land are those who physically toil on it; not those who saved and did without to buy it, but those who had already received wages to work on it. Also we learned that poor people are entitled to kill people with money or land, because they have more money. Because money is evil - when "the rich" have it. It's okay when it is stolen by the people, because "that's socialism", and is, ipso facto, okay.

What a tiresome pile of ordure. Gerard Depardieu is unrecognizable he's so skinny. He actually looks a little like DeNiro here. And those guys penises have enough screen time here to get their own credits. 

HorrorRetro

I just watched "The Imposter," which is a documentary, and I think it's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.  ???   The twists and turns in this story are incredible.  I don't want to give too much away, but how could a family, especially a mother, not know?  The potential explanation of the family's behavior is chilling.  Such a bizarre story.  I watched it on Netflix streaming, if anyone is interested. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1966604/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

ziznak

Quote from: HorrorRetro on June 14, 2013, 11:29:05 PM
I just watched "The Imposter," which is a documentary, and I think it's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.  ???   The twists and turns in this story are incredible.  I don't want to give too much away, but how could a family, especially a mother, not know?  The potential explanation of the family's behavior is chilling.  Such a bizarre story.  I watched it on Netflix streaming, if anyone is interested. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1966604/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
I'm actually downloading it now... imdb has it in top 5000 and it got a 7.5 so yeah thanks i think.  I'll let ya know how it goes.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod