On a lighter note, my gripe has to do with the portrayal music in movies (and on TV). Why is it that all you need is to start singing and suddenly a) everyone around you knows all the words and music and choreography; and b) there’s a backing band (in scenes where someone’s playing an instrument you frequently hear other instruments as well).
About the only people I know who can get together and reel off an unrehearsed musical masterpiece are veteran jazz musicians – everyone else (even highly trained classical musicians) has to rehearse together at least once.
The only movie I don’t gripe about when this happens is The Blues Brothers. But then, the image of an entire neighborhood stopping suddenly to dance to Ray Charles in perfect synch is way too much fun to complain about.
Well, what about musicals like The Wizard of Oz where characters sing and there is music backing them up and yet no musicians are present?!?!
It’s called “artistic license.” It’s one of the conventions of the form. It’s a fantasy that a random group of people can get up and sing and dance together in perfect pitch, harmony, timing and choreography and they all know all the lyrics. And it’s all designed to convey thought and feelings in a way different from straight-forward dialogue and acting. Sheesh!
Well, maybe you DO understnad.
I suggest to poor dougie that he not watch American Beauty. In this movie, which won the Oscar for Best Picture, a middle-aged man fantasizes about making love to a high school girl. He never actually does it, he just fantasizes about it. Does this make him a pedophile?!?!?!
No.
Does it mean this movie endorses pedophilia?!?!?!
No.
Will it turn someone into a pedophile?!?!?!?!
No.
IT’S JUST A FREAKIN’ MOVIE!!!
Thank you.
djf750: You are an idiot. There are some very real problems in this world and violence against women in particular and violence in general certainly are important, but the scenes in those movies are in there to show you what those characters are like, that Tom Cruise’s character had lost his humanity in becoming a vampire and Brad Pitt’s character was still struggling to retain his humanity, if I recall the movie correctly. Only a supremely warped brain would watch these scenes and think, “Oh, great! This movie’s giving me permission to rape and kill women! Hot dog! Now I know what to do after the movie!”
A supremely warped brain might come to the same conclusion after reading the Bible. In fact, one bastard defended his torturing and killing his children by claiming the Bible said a father may kill his children if he so desires. But we ain’t gonna blame the Bible for that, are we?
Dougie said in an above post that he has schizophrenia and my (admittedly extremely limited) understanding, people who suffer from this disease have difficulties with reality. It’s obvious he’s pained by some of what he’s seen on the screen and avoiding movies altogether may very well be what’s best for his well-being. I don’t think he should be ridiculed for this.
…how in “TITANIC”, when Jack Dawson (Leo DiCaprio) escapes being drowned in the compartment (up to his neck in icy seawater), then fights his way up to the main deck, his clothes are absolutely dry?
The same way that Robinson Crusoe can strip naked, swim out to the wreck of his ship, and then fill his pockets with goodies! (book, not movie)
Gr8kat- I wasn’t making fun because he has schizophrenia. In fact, I was gonna ask what the hell did bad movies have to do with schizophrenia in the first place, but you may have explained it.
If I had a problem dealing with reality, I would be damn sure to accept movie or book recommendations from people who understood my situation and were careful with their suggestions.
I don’t blame him in the slightest. Sounds like someone with brains to me. Your brother, that is.
So… am I supposed to feel sorry for you? Boo Hoo. You are schizophrenic. Oh, I’ve insulted you. Gosh, I’m a slimeball.
Nah… what I really mean is Fuck You. You are on the list, buddy. I don’t feel sorry for you. Find it elsewhere. If you have problems with the movies and can’t tell fiction from reality, find a rubber room and move in. I know plenty of people who actually have your problem, and they manage fine. Not all the time, but they did understand the difference between movies and real life.
Ever see The Siege? Ok, so maybe it didn’t show a busload of small children being blown away, but it did show a busload of elderly folks being blown up. Over the top? Not at all, considering the theme. And you know what? I wasn’t offended in the least. Why? because I knew it was just a movie. You know, squibs of karo syrup (or whatever they use nowadays), carefully orchestrated explosions, stunt people flying through the air, that sort of thing. Same thing would apply to the busload of children. If I saw it on the news, it would upset me (ever hear of Chowchilla?). I can, however, separate fantasy from reality, and can enjoy a movie, no matter how over-the-top it might be.
**
Really?! Wow…thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:
So, you can accept that vampires are not real, but the violence and terror they inflict is real? The whole idea was, as jab1 said, to show that they had lost, or were losing, their humanity. Humans had become playthings, much as a cat might play with a mouse before killing it and eating it. The women screaming as one might scream in real-life is called acting. Do you really think they were terrified?
**
Yes they are…but not by vampires. Or by people pretending to be vampires. They are murdered by psychotic individuals who would exist in society regardless of whether movies depicted violence or not.
Besides, Louis (Pitt’s character) made it pretty clear that he was not OK with what LeStat (Cruise’s character) was doing.
I was thinking less of “musicals” where all the action stops for the duration of the musical number and more of movies in which musical performance is part of the story. You start off with one person and a piano, and then suddenly the strings come in, and the oboe, and percussion and the choir…
Yes, I know it’s only a movie and I shouldn’t gripe about these things, but it’s just the way I am.
I may not have gone to the movies since 1987, but I have seen news stories since long before that (I remember the headlines about Orval Faubus and the integration of Little Rock Central High School in 1957); the situation with real-world terrorism in the 1980s being what it was, the terrorism in the movies was just surfeit.
Incidentally, while I have not gone to the movies since 1987 (but I’ve seen ads for plenty of them; and at a friend’s urging I did see Forrest Gump on video), I had been sent to the movies by my parents, along with a brother and sister, in the late 50s; after we moved I no longer went to the movies on a regular basis (and they included Witness for the Prosecution, Vertigo, The Solid Gold Cadillac, Run Silent, Run Deep, The Last Voyage, and Yellow Sky, to name a few); I have not gone to the movies regularly since January 1960; after seeing The Love Bug eleven years later I didn’t go to the movies again until 1982: Time Bandits. I also saw Little Shop of Horrors and Amadeus before the fiasco with The Believers. The content of contemporary movies being what it is, I consider it wise for me not to test my own temper.
I thank you, gr8kat, for this comment, although it’s likely no one else among the Teeming Millions may agree with me on movies–and I wouldn’t be surpised at all if this were the case–someone has at least attempted to offer a sympathetic comment.
Saint Zero, I see no reason to take this matter up with you.
I don’t give a shit what your mental illness is. That has little or nothing to do with what you have posted. You never said “I sometimes have a problem discerning reality from fantasy, so some movies have upset me very much and I don’t like it.” You made it sound like you just had a few pet peeves, and were going to bash them around in the Pit. But as soon as people engaged you about what you had posted, you played the “poor me” card.
Well, fine, poor you. A thinly-disguised OP that is really about you hating everything but trying to hold your temper for the sake of the rest of the world.
Don’t bother.
And BTW, you have no idea what the content of contemporary movies is based on what you read in the fucking TV Guide. How someone who claims to have been alive in the 50’s can have such immature ideas is beyond me.
FYI, I have never based my appraisal of movies on commentary in TV Guide.
However, now that you asked, I will here quote a man whose letter was printed in the TV Guide, concerning more modern movies. (As I mentioned earlier, I see ads, on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, concerning movies; and, although I don’t go to the movies, I sometimes watch Roger Ebert’s half-hour program in which he gives reviews.)
“What kind of movies can my then eight-year-old daughter see when she grows out of Disney cartoons? Most of the movies in the theaters now are so violent and bawdy I don’t want to see them myself. I don’t even want to see ads for them on TV. And the reviewers, aside from Joe Queenan, consider these things ‘hip.’ Most of the movies made in the 60s were appropriate for young people. Now there are almost none.”
In other words, since you now know that I mix with movies the way oil mixes with water: Lay off me.
I’m with you on this one, iampunha. I just saw Red Planet last week, and there’s a scene where Carrie Ann Moss announces to her crew that she is gonna take a shower. I’m thinking, “okay, that’s nice, she’s gonna take a shower.”
But then, come the next scene, it shows her in the shower masked by a fogged up door. Next, it shows her exiting the shower from a side angle lifting her arm, so we’re able to see a side view of her breast (no nipple though) for a few seconds.
Alright, now don’t get me wrong here, I’m all for T&A, but in the right context. This was just overly gratuitous. Yeah, I know, a lot of movies are like this, but this one is still fresh in my mind, and it contributed to the suck factor this movie has, among many other flaws in this film.
I object to cliches. They get so annoying. You know, someone jumping out of an exploding car/building/platypus. Sigh. That’s why I love Tarantino- he’s not afraid to show stuff that’s considered shocking.
Ah and about Back to the Future? Dude, that’s a classic! You’re the first person I know who unashamedly hates it. Sorry I’m just a huge fan. I don’t think that Marty McFly was such a smartass. He was really cute, IMO- and there really wasn’t that much violence, compared to other films. It’s a “family-friendly” movie, other than the terrorist scene…and I’m not really into movies either, but I still love this one. Just my opinion on that…
Here I am, having just watched B2TF, and thouroughly enjoying it. Sorry, dougie, but you need to lighten up just a wee bit if this movie made you so angry you had to leave. Save it for movies that are actually offensive, like Lost in Space, which was offensive due to the shame it brought the original series.
Oh, but dougie was right about the first scene. It IS in Doc Brown’s lab, with all the clocks.
Ever see The Siege? Ok, so maybe it didn’t show a busload of small children being blown away, but it did show a busload of elderly folks being blown up. Over the top? Not at all, considering the theme. And you know what? I wasn’t offended in the least. Why? because I knew it was just a movie. You know, squibs of karo syrup (or whatever they use nowadays), carefully orchestrated explosions, stunt people flying through the air, that sort of thing. Same thing would apply to the busload of children. If I saw it on the news, it would upset me (ever hear of Chowchilla?). I can, however, separate fantasy from reality, and can enjoy a movie, no matter how over-the-top it might be.
first of all to that idiot who called me an idiot-i never said, and i dont believe, that violent movies cause MOST people to go out and commit violent acts-
and to you mauve , so what you are saying is ANY act of violence is ok (including violence against children) since its just a movie? hollywood can graphically show anything as long as the actors aren’t really hurt in the production of the film?
Hey personally I don’t think it really matters. If you don’t like a certain act of violence you have the power to turn off your TV, or not see a movie…you know? And why should violence against children be considered any worse than violence against those who are older? Seems a big age-ist to me…
Yup. As I said, it’s only a movie, no-one really gets hurt (unless, of course, there is an accident during filming). And I know this. Therefore, it doesn’t bother me. It’s a movie, not the evening news.
Here’s just an example: I am incredibly squeamish. I pass out if I see my own blood, or anyone else’s. Heck, a few months ago I passed out just because I overheard one of my co-workers talking about her son’s mashed finger (it only caused a nasty bruise, no permanent damage)! However, I can watch any buckets-of-blood movie you care to mention. Why? Because I know it’s not real. It does not matter how real it may look on-screen; the mere knowledge that it’s an illusion bypasses my squeamishness.
(As an aside, however, I do object to movies which gratuitously display people in high places. I am acrophobic, and such scenes, even though I know they, too, may not be real (even though some are, of course), do affect me - my feet ache, my hands begin to sweat, and my heart beats faster. I object to them, but I still watch them anyway :D)
The movie Time Bandits, which I saw in 1982, included a Robin Hood scene with an element whose presence mystified me and which I considered unnecessary and sadistic. Although Robin’s Merry Men give gifts of money, etc., to the poor, one of them slugs the recipient viciously immediately afterward. One of the others asks Robin, “Was that necessary?” He answers “You know that it was.” Well, I don’t.
Bill Murray’s movie Stripes begins with Murray getting a shoeshine. When the guy finishes and asks for his money, Murray pulls a knife on him. This seems to be a throwaway bit and I wish that it had been thrown away.
Mel Brooks’ Silent Movie includes a scene with Mel and Bernadette Peters on a merry-go-round; the wooden horse at one point lifts its tail and poops eleven dice the size of baseballs. What that is supposed to mean I may never know.
According to a snippet run on a local news program, the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High included a dimwitted student getting a pizza delivered to him in class, to the outrage of his teacher. Another ostensibly meaningless throwaway bit.
But to me, the worst offender before 1970 was the movie It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1965). At the end, Spencer Tracy, seriously injured and facing the loss of his job, home, wife, and family (and perhaps winding up on skid row, drinking nail polish and throwing up into the gutter), sees a nurse slip and fall and laughs himself sick. Over my head. Pearls before swine, at its absolute best.
I also find it necessary to point out that, since 1982, there are several instances in which I have tried to endure a contemporary movie. Besides the elements (content) of the movie, the cost of a ticket and the noise (people talking over the movie; or the extremely loud sound system) turn me off. It’s a combination of factors and, given current prices and conditions, it’s not likely I’ll go to the movies anytime soon.
I think it was just supposed to be funny. I never saw Fast Times but I know 80’s movies are known for being anti-teacher/adult. It’s something that everyone has wanted to do. It’s like saying to your teacher, “Hey I don’t care about pre-calc, and I’m not afraid to let you know.” One of those things you could never get away with in real life, but could do in the movies…
Sorry I’m just a huge fan. I don’t think that Marty McFly was such a smartass. He was really cute, IMO- and there really wasn’t that much violence, compared to other films. It’s a “family-friendly” movie, other than the terrorist scene…and I’m not really into movies either, but I still love this one. Just my opinion on that…