The Movie Thread
- Thread starter Maddox
- Start date
Just re-watched 'it's a wonderful life' which has become a bit of a Christmas tradition for me.
The story starts with some calls for help for a man named 'George Bailey' posing the question - what went wrong? The movie leaves this hanging as we learn about George's early life, his dreams and ambitions (most of which get thwarted) and how he ended up in a state of despair and in need of an angel's help.
The film has a reputation for being sentimental yet I find it to give an unflinching look at how a mixture of bad luck and the odd mistake can leave one feeling in a state of despair masking the good in ones life. The film also poses some interesting questions. For example, early in the film as an adult George Bailey dreams of doing something big and important. Yet he ultimately chooses to take on responsibility at home and evade the adventurous life full of big dreams and achievements he envisioned for himself. As pressures build at home, he becomes more disgusted with himself for the life he has. Yet the film's resolution reminds that in choosing to stay and serve others he has gained something perhaps impossible if he had chosen the life of individualistic experiences and achievement he envisioned.
The movie is somewhat cloying and appealing to a sentimental part of us in saying 'what you have, even in small town provincial life, is good enough' since it might lead to an implication that the unambitious life is somehow superior. Maybe there is a reality where George Bailey left home, built bridges AND had the family life and importance among his friends and family at home. Indeed, he is even given the opportunity to invest in a new plastics company and has the idea to include a local factory in these plans. But his sense of duty to his father's company scuppers this plan. Perhaps in real life it's not so black and white and there is a third way, but it's not seen as possible in this film due to the message that 'duty to others brings value to ones life greater than the pursuit of money or individualistic pursuit.'
Despite the elements of fantasy, with a dystopian future presented as well as angels appearing in human form, what I enjoy the most is how grounded the film is. All of us in life are George Bailey to varying degrees. We all have to make compromises and take wrong turns at times. We all have moments in life where it appears that everything we have is valueless compared to what we imagine we deserve or could have if only we'd followed certain ideals to their conclusion. But we cannot be destroyed by imaginings of what could be and let that erase what actually is. There is plenty to admire in the lives we have built for ourselves even if they weren't the ones we dreamt in idealistic youth so long as those lives include service to community and loved ones. If we are not only selfish despair will not destroy is. That's a based message. Christmas or not.
The story starts with some calls for help for a man named 'George Bailey' posing the question - what went wrong? The movie leaves this hanging as we learn about George's early life, his dreams and ambitions (most of which get thwarted) and how he ended up in a state of despair and in need of an angel's help.
The film has a reputation for being sentimental yet I find it to give an unflinching look at how a mixture of bad luck and the odd mistake can leave one feeling in a state of despair masking the good in ones life. The film also poses some interesting questions. For example, early in the film as an adult George Bailey dreams of doing something big and important. Yet he ultimately chooses to take on responsibility at home and evade the adventurous life full of big dreams and achievements he envisioned for himself. As pressures build at home, he becomes more disgusted with himself for the life he has. Yet the film's resolution reminds that in choosing to stay and serve others he has gained something perhaps impossible if he had chosen the life of individualistic experiences and achievement he envisioned.
The movie is somewhat cloying and appealing to a sentimental part of us in saying 'what you have, even in small town provincial life, is good enough' since it might lead to an implication that the unambitious life is somehow superior. Maybe there is a reality where George Bailey left home, built bridges AND had the family life and importance among his friends and family at home. Indeed, he is even given the opportunity to invest in a new plastics company and has the idea to include a local factory in these plans. But his sense of duty to his father's company scuppers this plan. Perhaps in real life it's not so black and white and there is a third way, but it's not seen as possible in this film due to the message that 'duty to others brings value to ones life greater than the pursuit of money or individualistic pursuit.'
Despite the elements of fantasy, with a dystopian future presented as well as angels appearing in human form, what I enjoy the most is how grounded the film is. All of us in life are George Bailey to varying degrees. We all have to make compromises and take wrong turns at times. We all have moments in life where it appears that everything we have is valueless compared to what we imagine we deserve or could have if only we'd followed certain ideals to their conclusion. But we cannot be destroyed by imaginings of what could be and let that erase what actually is. There is plenty to admire in the lives we have built for ourselves even if they weren't the ones we dreamt in idealistic youth so long as those lives include service to community and loved ones. If we are not only selfish despair will not destroy is. That's a based message. Christmas or not.
Like the rest of America, I just rewatched it myself this month. I don't find the film cloying at all. But then again, I'm a sentimental old fool myself. What I really like about this movie is the 101 class we get on the fractional reserve banking system in this country. It's explained to us through George explaining it to his customers that their money is not in the bank, it's in each other's homes. And it takes faith in one another that their money will always be there as long as they stick together as a community and not go to Potter for their loans.
There are however a couple of things I still don't understand about the banking part of this movie:
1. Why was Potter on the board of the Bailey B&L?
2. Why would Potter give the B&L a call loan if he wanted the institution dissolved in the first place since it was direct competition to his own bank?
I watched Rebel Moon last night with the missus. She was in the mood for some dumb action movie and boy oh boy did it deliver on that! The movie was basically A Bug's Life meets Seven Samurai but as science fiction, meaning a bunch of useless spaceships and fighting with swords for some reason. Obviously a lot was borrowed from past successful film franchises, but I still couldn't believe how boring and sleep-inducing the film was. It was also a direct ripoff of Battle Beyond the Stars, except BBtS was clever in its cadre of alien mercenaries whereas Rebel Moon featured a bunch of ripped models. At least in BBtS the farming planet assembled a small fleet to take on a big ship, in Rebel Moon they assemble so-called warriors who... don't have ships? They don't have any fighting skills beyond hand-to-hand combat? What were they expecting to accomplish, I wonder? Especially when we learn the enemy fleet is capable of nuking from orbit.
It was also your typical Talmudwood production of a ragtag group of people of color taking on the most evil version of white people they can imagine, Nazi-Romans, or were they Roman-Nazis? I had to tell my wife they only make white people the bad guy because some rabbi said white people were the only group of people who don't have a lobby to give Hollywood grief over casting their race as bad guys. Perhaps a white lobby to push for no more evil Nazi bad guys is in order? I can't even imagine how entertaining it would have been if the bad guys were all Jewish. I also note the small almost-rape scene where a bunch of evil white space marines attempt to rape a blond, blue-eyed young woman and the only space marine to see it as wrong was the Asian guy.
The only way I can find these kinds of movies even remotely watchable is to make fun of them, like when I deliberately watch a "bad movie" from the past.
It was also your typical Talmudwood production of a ragtag group of people of color taking on the most evil version of white people they can imagine, Nazi-Romans, or were they Roman-Nazis? I had to tell my wife they only make white people the bad guy because some rabbi said white people were the only group of people who don't have a lobby to give Hollywood grief over casting their race as bad guys. Perhaps a white lobby to push for no more evil Nazi bad guys is in order? I can't even imagine how entertaining it would have been if the bad guys were all Jewish. I also note the small almost-rape scene where a bunch of evil white space marines attempt to rape a blond, blue-eyed young woman and the only space marine to see it as wrong was the Asian guy.
The only way I can find these kinds of movies even remotely watchable is to make fun of them, like when I deliberately watch a "bad movie" from the past.
Did you notice that when they meet the rebel group, the rebels ships bear a striking resemblance to the main ship from Battle Beyond the Stars.
I will be interested to see the difference in the r-rated Sunder cut of the film compared to this.
Just watched 'The Family Man' as part of my Christmas season viewing and as a companion piece to 'It's a Wonderful Life.'
It starts with Nicolas Cage playing a Scrooge like banker who gets a chance to go back and see what his life would have been like if he hadn't left his University girlfriend to pursue his career abroad.
What follows is relatively predictable in that Cage comes to understand that life as a family man was vastly superior to his money chasing individuality. However what I truly appreciate in this movie is that it talks about some of the hardships of a committed lifestyle. There is an understanding that such a way of life means forgoing temptations of infidelity and a sacrifice of the life you might have dreamt for yourself in idealized youth. In the latter stages of the movie the film suggests that maybe you can have your cake and eat it too (career success and family) so long as you strive for it.
I appreciate that the film does not glorify following your dreams at the expense of all else or present decadence as just thrilling and exciting. Yes we can imagine the pleasures of the flesh provided by an erotic prospect of a married women but we can also imagine the damage it would cause to the marriage of acted upon. There is also a reference to how as a married man you are constantly bombarded with advertising (lingerie ads etc...) that makes you feel like the sacrifice you have taken is a mistake. This was all 20 years ago and it's only gotten wore in subsequent years.
Cage yells out 'I took the road less travelled' but for once in a film this is not presented as positive. I read a comment earlier of a user saying this is what might have happened to George Bailey if he had left and built bridges rather then stayed and settled down. It's very possible.
Another aspect of this movie I found interesting is this idea that there are different versions of ourselves which find (or do not find) an expression or outlet in life and the consequences of this. Inside of the broken suburbanite there might be an inner assertive self that is able to combine their family life with a successful career (or way of living life where one is not merely downtrodden). This is what I think the film is saying we should aspire towards. In the alternate reality, we see the once feckless colleague now in a senior role but also finding ways to stay in close contact with his family. It doesn't have to be either or.
The film presents a positive message about not only family life but about choosing a life that is not mere impulse gratification. It suggest one can actualize oneself while maintaining the family unit. Perhaps the narrative engine could be more pulsating and there could be more tension in the film's writing. But the message is a valuable one and for that I'd recommend this to anyone.
It starts with Nicolas Cage playing a Scrooge like banker who gets a chance to go back and see what his life would have been like if he hadn't left his University girlfriend to pursue his career abroad.
What follows is relatively predictable in that Cage comes to understand that life as a family man was vastly superior to his money chasing individuality. However what I truly appreciate in this movie is that it talks about some of the hardships of a committed lifestyle. There is an understanding that such a way of life means forgoing temptations of infidelity and a sacrifice of the life you might have dreamt for yourself in idealized youth. In the latter stages of the movie the film suggests that maybe you can have your cake and eat it too (career success and family) so long as you strive for it.
I appreciate that the film does not glorify following your dreams at the expense of all else or present decadence as just thrilling and exciting. Yes we can imagine the pleasures of the flesh provided by an erotic prospect of a married women but we can also imagine the damage it would cause to the marriage of acted upon. There is also a reference to how as a married man you are constantly bombarded with advertising (lingerie ads etc...) that makes you feel like the sacrifice you have taken is a mistake. This was all 20 years ago and it's only gotten wore in subsequent years.
Cage yells out 'I took the road less travelled' but for once in a film this is not presented as positive. I read a comment earlier of a user saying this is what might have happened to George Bailey if he had left and built bridges rather then stayed and settled down. It's very possible.
Another aspect of this movie I found interesting is this idea that there are different versions of ourselves which find (or do not find) an expression or outlet in life and the consequences of this. Inside of the broken suburbanite there might be an inner assertive self that is able to combine their family life with a successful career (or way of living life where one is not merely downtrodden). This is what I think the film is saying we should aspire towards. In the alternate reality, we see the once feckless colleague now in a senior role but also finding ways to stay in close contact with his family. It doesn't have to be either or.
The film presents a positive message about not only family life but about choosing a life that is not mere impulse gratification. It suggest one can actualize oneself while maintaining the family unit. Perhaps the narrative engine could be more pulsating and there could be more tension in the film's writing. But the message is a valuable one and for that I'd recommend this to anyone.
I remember this movie very well. I consider this one of Cage's transgressive movies that I liked.
As you said, inherent in his character's nature was was the ability to step up into the world of high finance and wealth. However, he also had the the option of true love with a middle class woman within the milieu in which he was born. Rise to a higher class, or struggle with your true love to afford diapers? Which one do you choose?
The latter choice is probably better, but I think a lot fail to make it work for them.
Great film, for bringing it all up for thought.
Last night, I put on "Leave The World Behind", a tense disaster thriller with an executive producer credit by the Obummers. If you think there'd be a racial theme shoehorned into this film, you'd be right. And for no good reason too. It's just there to be there.
There are some good qualities to this film like the way it was shot; the unique camera angles added to the unsettling fear in the movie. But there are things that don't make sense added into this film strictly to make it more exciting. And to the film's credit, it wasn't boring. It retained my interest even though the believability in certain events was stretched to the max.
One creepy coincidence that I can't shake is the fact that the son in the movie is wearing an "Obey" shirt while his sister is wearing a NASA shirt. Make of that what you will.
The thing I came away with is that this was a piece of predictive programming that shows how things here in the US can all too easily go up in flames. It made me want to book the first flight out of this place.
There are some good qualities to this film like the way it was shot; the unique camera angles added to the unsettling fear in the movie. But there are things that don't make sense added into this film strictly to make it more exciting. And to the film's credit, it wasn't boring. It retained my interest even though the believability in certain events was stretched to the max.
One creepy coincidence that I can't shake is the fact that the son in the movie is wearing an "Obey" shirt while his sister is wearing a NASA shirt. Make of that what you will.
The thing I came away with is that this was a piece of predictive programming that shows how things here in the US can all too easily go up in flames. It made me want to book the first flight out of this place.
Last edited:
Black Rain by Ridley Scott is really solid. Recommendation from my father, which he claimed was in the "same style as Godfather". It feels like a less sci-fi version of Blade Runner, that's more focused on Japan. Great actor choices as well.
I’d like to try to end this year on a high note movie-wise. I said in my last post in this thread that I would report on “Godzilla Minus One” if I saw it, so here it is, spoiler free aside from the basic set up:
First off, this is a great movie. It feels like an old fashioned action-thriller, and not just because it takes place in the late 1940’s. It’s just a solid well made crowd-pleaser. Japan has delivered once again. This is a story about people-specifically one man’s search for redemption and forgiveness. This isn’t just a tacked-on story like in most previous Godzilla films, you really find yourself engaged and caring about the human characters and their struggles. Godzilla is the antagonist they have to struggle against, but that struggle could have been about a natural disaster and it would still be compelling. I’ve heard several people say it’s a surprisingly good date-movie. Apparently some guys dragged their wives and girlfriends along and the women were just as engaged as the men were. That’s what a good movie does.
The film tells the story of Koichi, a failed kamikaze pilot-who faked mechanical trouble to avoid completing his mission-who first encounters the Godzilla monster in the final days of World War II. Paralyzed by fear and unable to act, he survives the encounter, but returns home wracked by guilt, suffering ptsd and facing the scorn and judgment of his neighbors. His only solace comes in the family unit he manages to form with a young woman named Noriko and Akiko, the orphaned baby she rescued. Koichi takes them both into his home but refuses to become romantically involved with Noriko-despite clear feelings on both their parts-and tries not to become overly attached to Akiko. Desperate for work, Koichi takes a dangerous job as a minesweeper at sea-where he encounters Godzilla once again. Only now the creature is bigger, angrier, and more powerful after being mutated by Atomic bomb testing. So begins Japan’s struggle for survival-and Koichi’s chance at redemption.
This is the kind of movie Hollywood used to make. As I said, it’s a crowd pleaser, but it’s also pretty smart and interesting. I was wondering how they would manage to defeat Godzilla using WWII era tech and was pleasantly surprised that the solution was fairly practical and didn’t involve some kind of super science device like the oxygen-destroyer of the 1954 original.
The Godzilla monster in this film also feels like a more personal and menacing threat than in previous films. He’s one of the smallest Godzilla monsters in any iteration-maybe the smallest-at 60 meters/196 feet. Of course, it’s Godzilla so he’s still massive-but it almost feels like he has an actual vendetta against humanity and not like we’re just ants to him. This works really well especially in one sequence which clearly owes something to “Jaws”.
What’s also surprising is that it was made on a budget of less than $15 million U.S. The special effects still look fantastic, particularly Godzilla powering up and firing his atomic breath. It really makes you wonder where Hollywood is wasting its money…
Final Note: 0 wokeness. There are some political tones and criticism of government, but this is fairly justified given the context. The ordinary citizens basically realize that the government is useless and that they’ll have to take care of things themselves.
First off, this is a great movie. It feels like an old fashioned action-thriller, and not just because it takes place in the late 1940’s. It’s just a solid well made crowd-pleaser. Japan has delivered once again. This is a story about people-specifically one man’s search for redemption and forgiveness. This isn’t just a tacked-on story like in most previous Godzilla films, you really find yourself engaged and caring about the human characters and their struggles. Godzilla is the antagonist they have to struggle against, but that struggle could have been about a natural disaster and it would still be compelling. I’ve heard several people say it’s a surprisingly good date-movie. Apparently some guys dragged their wives and girlfriends along and the women were just as engaged as the men were. That’s what a good movie does.
The film tells the story of Koichi, a failed kamikaze pilot-who faked mechanical trouble to avoid completing his mission-who first encounters the Godzilla monster in the final days of World War II. Paralyzed by fear and unable to act, he survives the encounter, but returns home wracked by guilt, suffering ptsd and facing the scorn and judgment of his neighbors. His only solace comes in the family unit he manages to form with a young woman named Noriko and Akiko, the orphaned baby she rescued. Koichi takes them both into his home but refuses to become romantically involved with Noriko-despite clear feelings on both their parts-and tries not to become overly attached to Akiko. Desperate for work, Koichi takes a dangerous job as a minesweeper at sea-where he encounters Godzilla once again. Only now the creature is bigger, angrier, and more powerful after being mutated by Atomic bomb testing. So begins Japan’s struggle for survival-and Koichi’s chance at redemption.
This is the kind of movie Hollywood used to make. As I said, it’s a crowd pleaser, but it’s also pretty smart and interesting. I was wondering how they would manage to defeat Godzilla using WWII era tech and was pleasantly surprised that the solution was fairly practical and didn’t involve some kind of super science device like the oxygen-destroyer of the 1954 original.
The Godzilla monster in this film also feels like a more personal and menacing threat than in previous films. He’s one of the smallest Godzilla monsters in any iteration-maybe the smallest-at 60 meters/196 feet. Of course, it’s Godzilla so he’s still massive-but it almost feels like he has an actual vendetta against humanity and not like we’re just ants to him. This works really well especially in one sequence which clearly owes something to “Jaws”.
What’s also surprising is that it was made on a budget of less than $15 million U.S. The special effects still look fantastic, particularly Godzilla powering up and firing his atomic breath. It really makes you wonder where Hollywood is wasting its money…
Final Note: 0 wokeness. There are some political tones and criticism of government, but this is fairly justified given the context. The ordinary citizens basically realize that the government is useless and that they’ll have to take care of things themselves.
^ I second all of this. I came here to recommend Godzilla Minus One. The Americanized Godzilla movies are fun in their own way, but I don't even know the character's names by the end & there's too much reliance on magical American technological supremacy. In contrast, this Japanese iteration has character drama engaging enough to make you forget you're watching a Godzilla movie & the battles stick strictly to practical WWII tech. It feels personal.
When Godzilla appears, the destruction he wreaks is awesome. Yet it is not pointless or gratuitous because the characters have to deal with the consequences immediately. I went from, "Laser breath HELLS YEAH," to sadness within a few moments. And then I felt bad for wanting more laser breath.
On that note, this movie looks amazing. The laser breath is sick. Toho Studios put a lot of love & elbow grease into this movie. The ~$15 million budget goes far & would likely be closer to $200 million if this movie was produced by Hollywood. The costume design is solid as well & the characters carry that quiet dignity that the Japanese are know for. Even when characters show weakness, it is because they are aspiring to higher standards of duty & honour. On that point:
0 wokeness. In fact, Westerners will likely be left wistful for the cultural cohesion & coherent masculine/feminine dynamic of times past.
Anyway, I really liked this movie. I hope you guys will at least check out a review to see if it's something you might enjoy.
When Godzilla appears, the destruction he wreaks is awesome. Yet it is not pointless or gratuitous because the characters have to deal with the consequences immediately. I went from, "Laser breath HELLS YEAH," to sadness within a few moments. And then I felt bad for wanting more laser breath.
On that note, this movie looks amazing. The laser breath is sick. Toho Studios put a lot of love & elbow grease into this movie. The ~$15 million budget goes far & would likely be closer to $200 million if this movie was produced by Hollywood. The costume design is solid as well & the characters carry that quiet dignity that the Japanese are know for. Even when characters show weakness, it is because they are aspiring to higher standards of duty & honour. On that point:
0 wokeness. In fact, Westerners will likely be left wistful for the cultural cohesion & coherent masculine/feminine dynamic of times past.
Anyway, I really liked this movie. I hope you guys will at least check out a review to see if it's something you might enjoy.
Last night I watched something called 'Manodrome' starring Jessie Eisenberg.
Basic plot here is that Eisenberg is a gym pumping Uber driver who recently got laid off from his job (oh and he also has a pregnant blue haired wife). One of his buddies introduces him to a wealthy masculine subculture and various unfortunate events follow.
The first film that comes to mind when thinking about 'nerdy guy joins male subculture' is Fight Club. But Fight Club had a lot to say about the time it was made in - quite directly actually through monologues about the soulless aspect of Ikea furniture and modern living. Also, implicitly - the Fight Club was the antidote to the malaise and possibly even the path to personal transformation. With such heady themes at play, it's understandable why this film resonated so much and continues to do.
A lot has changed since 1999 and it might be hard for those struggling to make ends meet in 2024 to relate to a monologue about the emptiness of wealthy comfort. From this angle, 'Manodrome' is of this moment as it does depict a man struggling with the pressures to make money. But there isn't really much depth to it. That's just the situation. There's no commentary on to what this really does to the character like in Fight Club. In fact, although he's played very well by Jessie Eisenberg, the main character isn't particuarly interesting. He's just an insecure gym bro who has issues with his masculinity.
The masculine cult he joins is led by Adrien Brody and is clearly based around the Andrew Tate scene. These guys are into weird chanting, celibacy and some vague idea of masculine empowerment. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of depth to the cult leader character to make the film resonant. Again to make the comparison to Fight Club, he's not Brad Pitt who directly critiques the society of that time. The film is toothless in this regard because clearly the film doesn't want to anger liberals by making any statement as to how or why men need such cults.
There's some random homosexual/homophobic element that is not very deep or interesting plus again some psychology 101 Daddy issue element which doesn't ring particularly true. There's more to this than just absent fathers. But the film doesn't want to make any criticism of women and the pressures relating to the feminization of our culture.
One problem I had is that apart from practicing celibacy and doing weirdo chanting, the cult doesn't really talk about it's aims or what it plans to do. Again, Fight Club had a genuinely revolutionary spirit. This just seemed a cartoon idea of what goes in with Andrew Tate esque people. 'Yeah, they sit around chanting and talking about being real men.' Might there not be more to it than that? And if there isn't can't you make something up to give the film a bit more depth?
The positive thing I would say is that the film doesn't make hostile attacks on men or the cult of masculinity presented particularly either. But in trying not to upset any group too much the film comes across as a real missed opportunity. There's room right now for a film about the issues men face today. I just think this particular writer/director didn't know how or was scared to make it.
Basic plot here is that Eisenberg is a gym pumping Uber driver who recently got laid off from his job (oh and he also has a pregnant blue haired wife). One of his buddies introduces him to a wealthy masculine subculture and various unfortunate events follow.
The first film that comes to mind when thinking about 'nerdy guy joins male subculture' is Fight Club. But Fight Club had a lot to say about the time it was made in - quite directly actually through monologues about the soulless aspect of Ikea furniture and modern living. Also, implicitly - the Fight Club was the antidote to the malaise and possibly even the path to personal transformation. With such heady themes at play, it's understandable why this film resonated so much and continues to do.
A lot has changed since 1999 and it might be hard for those struggling to make ends meet in 2024 to relate to a monologue about the emptiness of wealthy comfort. From this angle, 'Manodrome' is of this moment as it does depict a man struggling with the pressures to make money. But there isn't really much depth to it. That's just the situation. There's no commentary on to what this really does to the character like in Fight Club. In fact, although he's played very well by Jessie Eisenberg, the main character isn't particuarly interesting. He's just an insecure gym bro who has issues with his masculinity.
The masculine cult he joins is led by Adrien Brody and is clearly based around the Andrew Tate scene. These guys are into weird chanting, celibacy and some vague idea of masculine empowerment. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of depth to the cult leader character to make the film resonant. Again to make the comparison to Fight Club, he's not Brad Pitt who directly critiques the society of that time. The film is toothless in this regard because clearly the film doesn't want to anger liberals by making any statement as to how or why men need such cults.
There's some random homosexual/homophobic element that is not very deep or interesting plus again some psychology 101 Daddy issue element which doesn't ring particularly true. There's more to this than just absent fathers. But the film doesn't want to make any criticism of women and the pressures relating to the feminization of our culture.
One problem I had is that apart from practicing celibacy and doing weirdo chanting, the cult doesn't really talk about it's aims or what it plans to do. Again, Fight Club had a genuinely revolutionary spirit. This just seemed a cartoon idea of what goes in with Andrew Tate esque people. 'Yeah, they sit around chanting and talking about being real men.' Might there not be more to it than that? And if there isn't can't you make something up to give the film a bit more depth?
The positive thing I would say is that the film doesn't make hostile attacks on men or the cult of masculinity presented particularly either. But in trying not to upset any group too much the film comes across as a real missed opportunity. There's room right now for a film about the issues men face today. I just think this particular writer/director didn't know how or was scared to make it.
Last edited:
I just watched this movie I think many here would want to see.
I watched Saltburn but I don't feel like writing about it.
So instead I'll write about something else I saw recently called 'Beautiful girls' about a piano player who goes back to his hometown for a highschool reunion and catches up with old friends who are all somewhat stagnant in their lives.
The main character is at a crossroads in his life trying to decide whether to settle with his long term partner or not. Making this decision difficult of course is the titular (no pun intended) beautiful girls who are distractions as well as a neverending muse for the fantasies of the male imagination. This aspect of commitment avoiding fantasy is represented in one way by the teenage Natalie Portman. This character represents the idea of the perfect woman (I know this sounds creepy). But because she's so young and out of reach as a consequence of her age, she has something that no other woman has - which is that she's literally unattainable and then an object for the main character to project his idealized fantasy scenario onto. In addition to this, she's also very precocious for her age which again makes the main character think of an ideal future when she's of age and they can be together. Unlike age appropriate women, she has purity but also nothing but potential. All of this spikes the emotions in a more potent way than his actual potential future wife, where the future just looks like a period of ever decreasing enjoyment. The infatuation with the teenage girl also comes across 'wrong' as I type this but I understood this to be not a sexual fantasy but a purely innocent case of idealism and a representation of how the main character was indulging in this limbo like retreat from his real life.
The other type of 'beautiful girl' obsession is represented through the infatuation caused by magazines and pictures of models. In one speech one loserish character talks about how beauty can give you the energy to get through the day meanwhile his actual relationship has crumbled apart and he's not taken seriously by an attractive woman he tries hopelessly to seduce. There was an odd resonance to his speech about his masturbatory fantasies for pin up models and the strength they gave him to endure the hardships in life. Yet the reality he does not accept is that he's choosing to live in his mind rather than in reality. A real relationship is going to be messy and fraught with drama and tension in a way that imagining a beautiful model never will.
This movie shows a kind of small town reality. None of the characters have met their potential in life or become what they want to be. They all seem unsure where to go next. There's this sense of not having made up one's mind in the movie. But alongside the group of buddies still have fun together with drinking and videogames or singalongs at the local pub. It reminds me of what actually hanging out and drinking with my friends in my hometown felt like. Sure there's a lot of bigger issues to push to the back of one's mind (often with the aid of alcohol) but there can also be camaradarie in doing that.
So instead I'll write about something else I saw recently called 'Beautiful girls' about a piano player who goes back to his hometown for a highschool reunion and catches up with old friends who are all somewhat stagnant in their lives.
The main character is at a crossroads in his life trying to decide whether to settle with his long term partner or not. Making this decision difficult of course is the titular (no pun intended) beautiful girls who are distractions as well as a neverending muse for the fantasies of the male imagination. This aspect of commitment avoiding fantasy is represented in one way by the teenage Natalie Portman. This character represents the idea of the perfect woman (I know this sounds creepy). But because she's so young and out of reach as a consequence of her age, she has something that no other woman has - which is that she's literally unattainable and then an object for the main character to project his idealized fantasy scenario onto. In addition to this, she's also very precocious for her age which again makes the main character think of an ideal future when she's of age and they can be together. Unlike age appropriate women, she has purity but also nothing but potential. All of this spikes the emotions in a more potent way than his actual potential future wife, where the future just looks like a period of ever decreasing enjoyment. The infatuation with the teenage girl also comes across 'wrong' as I type this but I understood this to be not a sexual fantasy but a purely innocent case of idealism and a representation of how the main character was indulging in this limbo like retreat from his real life.
The other type of 'beautiful girl' obsession is represented through the infatuation caused by magazines and pictures of models. In one speech one loserish character talks about how beauty can give you the energy to get through the day meanwhile his actual relationship has crumbled apart and he's not taken seriously by an attractive woman he tries hopelessly to seduce. There was an odd resonance to his speech about his masturbatory fantasies for pin up models and the strength they gave him to endure the hardships in life. Yet the reality he does not accept is that he's choosing to live in his mind rather than in reality. A real relationship is going to be messy and fraught with drama and tension in a way that imagining a beautiful model never will.
This movie shows a kind of small town reality. None of the characters have met their potential in life or become what they want to be. They all seem unsure where to go next. There's this sense of not having made up one's mind in the movie. But alongside the group of buddies still have fun together with drinking and videogames or singalongs at the local pub. It reminds me of what actually hanging out and drinking with my friends in my hometown felt like. Sure there's a lot of bigger issues to push to the back of one's mind (often with the aid of alcohol) but there can also be camaradarie in doing that.
I enjoyed Old Dads. Wasn’t the greatest comedy but entertaining enough and I like that he attacked woke California culture in the film. However the whole movie, I felt like I screaming at the screen like everyone did when watching Amityville Horror for the first time…just GET OUT.
Probably the best film I’ve seen recently was The Holdovers. Thought it was better than all the other award nominated films and glad it’s starting to get some Oscar buzz. New teen actor Dominic Sessa was outstanding.