Favorite Movies not Written by Ayn Rand

[kiaer.ts]

What other kinds of victims are there?

People victimized by others. Obviously.

Oh god, I'm certainly not going to sit and watch that film again in order to properly review it. I've seen death, murder, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bahsers, and a hell of a lot more. Brokeback Mountain is a patronizing look at "gay" men that will apeal to straight women. It succeeded on that basis. It's also laughable, in the way that the remake of Shaft, which "portrays" life on 138th street in the South Bronx (where I lived for six years) is laughable. You want to watch a good entertaining "gay" movie version of Thelma and Louise? Watch The Living End. You want to see reality? I would suggest watching Paris is Burning instead. These are not films made to make gays look good and sympathetic to straight people.

OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists?

Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used.

It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it.

Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of.

Poppers?

I think you will admit that BBM was described as if it humanized homosexuals for a wide audience. As far as I am concerned, it patronized homosexuals with two pretty actors who look ever so boy-next-doorish and unthreatening and wholesome as possible so as not to alienate a certain target demographic.

If you think it is worth watching, do you want to say why? If there is some good reason I actually should watch the whole thing, I will be happy to be corrected.

Did you watch the clips I suggested?

[kiaer.ts]

Rear Window (I've written much on the brilliance of this film, and will probably do so here as well. Needless to say, it is Hitchcock's best film and the greatest suspense film ever made)

That Rear Window is "the greatest suspense film ever made" is of course a subjecive value judgement on your part. ;)

But no doubt there is breathtaking suspense in RW. Just think of the scene where Lisa (Grace Kelly) is in Thorwald's apartment. Or when Thorwald comes over and James Stewart has no other "weapon" but too shoot his flashlights at him.

But I find several other Hitchcock movies at least as suspenseful, e. g. Dial 'M' for Murder. Or Strangers on a Train. North by Northwest (one of my favorite Hitchcock movies) is also a film where the theme of suspense is all-present and played out in fast-paced, breathtaking scenes. I never tire of reviewing it.

Strangers On A Train (Great thriller. Engaging, well-paced, and I love the tension between the two men)

One of Hitchcock's best imo.

"Citizen Kane" is another of my favorite films. A work of pure genius imo.

Of course it is my subjective value judgment. Nothing is written in the heavens declaring that Rear Window is the world's greatest suspense film. And you forget that I'm not an Objectivist. Still, nothing else I've seen can compare to it.

The most brilliant and suspenseful scene in the movie is when Jeff (and, consequently, the viewer) watches helplessly as Thorwald makes his way into the apartment while Lisa is still in it. The second best, I think, is the expanse of silence which elapses, after Thorwald has made his way into the building. That, and the build-up to the door slowly opening is absolutely horrifying, as the viewer feels as powerless as Jeff does. Identifying with Jeff, we become paralyzed and defenseless.

I remember North by Northwest boring me. It is regarded as one of Hitchcock's best films, though. I should rewatch it.

I have no desire to rewatch Vertigo, though. What a disappointment.

Citizen Kane. What a godawful boring film. It took me two tries to make it all the way through. Just slightly less painful than The Godfather and LOTR trilogies.

I will admit the effectiveness of the scenes where Charles Foster Kane (I believe that was his name, been many years since I last saw it) wanders like a ghost through his huge mansion, though. Wealth divorced from values is worthless.

Marnie is Hitchcock's best film. NxNW is perfect except for its l...e...n...g...t...h. The 39 Steps, which I watched last night, is the film of which NxNW is a remake, and although it has some minor flaws, some stilted acting, it is one of his best. It can be seen for free on HULU. Vertigo could have been his best had it had a happy ending. Man Who Knew Too Much is also excellent. (I have only seen the remake with Stewart.) As for Rear Window, it is just too claustrophobic. It begs the question whether Stewart or his audience suffers more watching the horror unfold before them.

[ginny]

Ted! Finally someone besides me who loves Marnie. It's my favorite Hitchcock.

Ginny

[Michelle]

What other kinds of victims are there?

People victimized by others. Obviously.

Oh god, I'm certainly not going to sit and watch that film again in order to properly review it. I've seen death, murder, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bahsers, and a hell of a lot more. Brokeback Mountain is a patronizing look at "gay" men that will apeal to straight women. It succeeded on that basis. It's also laughable, in the way that the remake of Shaft, which "portrays" life on 138th street in the South Bronx (where I lived for six years) is laughable. You want to watch a good entertaining "gay" movie version of Thelma and Louise? Watch The Living End. You want to see reality? I would suggest watching Paris is Burning instead. These are not films made to make gays look good and sympathetic to straight people.

OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists?

Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used.

It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it.

Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of.

Poppers?

I think you will admit that BBM was described as if it humanized homosexuals for a wide audience. As far as I am concerned, it patronized homosexuals with two pretty actors who look ever so boy-next-doorish and unthreatening and wholesome as possible so as not to alienate a certain target demographic.

If you think it is worth watching, do you want to say why? If there is some good reason I actually should watch the whole thing, I will be happy to be corrected.

Did you watch the clips I suggested?

I was being a smart-ass. The characters in that setting and time period would not have been using poppers.

It humanized them, sure, but it didn't idealize them. Later in the film, Ennis del Mar in particular becomes quite violent around his wife, and he ends the film an embittered and broken man. Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) starts sleeping with prostitutes and grows distant from his family before he dies near the end of the film. The actors are pretty boys, yes, but the characters are not idealized. They're certainly not wholesome and unthreatening.

The cinematography is gorgeous (come on, watch some of the mountain scenes from a purely aesthetic standpoint). Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger both turn in riveting and heart-breaking performances as their respective characters. Moreover, the film never devolves into a slog about gay oppression at the hands of evil heteros. Like I said, it isn't about gay or straight. That element is not central to the core of the film. The film is majestic and lonely and unflinching in its analysis of its characters.

I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws. I rolled my eyes at some of the dialogue ('Ah wish ah knew how to quit you!' etc.). A few of the initial mountain scenes are a bit corny. Moreover, Gyllenhaal doesn't do a great job as Jack Twist. He's way too boyish for the role, and I never fully buy him as a 35+ year old man later in the film. Jack's wife Lureen never gets properly developed (Anne Hathaway is nowhere near as compelling in this role as Michelle Williams is playing Ennis' wife).

But compared to what it does right, these flaws are insubstantial.

It isn't the greatest film ever made, but it is superb, and I'd whole-heartedly recommend it to almost anybody.

Yes. The Living End looks terrific (by its trailer, at least). Not too sure about Paris is Building. I tend to avoid documentaries like the plague.

[Michelle]

Rear Window (I've written much on the brilliance of this film, and will probably do so here as well. Needless to say, it is Hitchcock's best film and the greatest suspense film ever made)

That Rear Window is "the greatest suspense film ever made" is of course a subjecive value judgement on your part. ;)

But no doubt there is breathtaking suspense in RW. Just think of the scene where Lisa (Grace Kelly) is in Thorwald's apartment. Or when Thorwald comes over and James Stewart has no other "weapon" but too shoot his flashlights at him.

But I find several other Hitchcock movies at least as suspenseful, e. g. Dial 'M' for Murder. Or Strangers on a Train. North by Northwest (one of my favorite Hitchcock movies) is also a film where the theme of suspense is all-present and played out in fast-paced, breathtaking scenes. I never tire of reviewing it.

Strangers On A Train (Great thriller. Engaging, well-paced, and I love the tension between the two men)

One of Hitchcock's best imo.

"Citizen Kane" is another of my favorite films. A work of pure genius imo.

Of course it is my subjective value judgment. Nothing is written in the heavens declaring that Rear Window is the world's greatest suspense film. And you forget that I'm not an Objectivist. Still, nothing else I've seen can compare to it.

The most brilliant and suspenseful scene in the movie is when Jeff (and, consequently, the viewer) watches helplessly as Thorwald makes his way into the apartment while Lisa is still in it. The second best, I think, is the expanse of silence which elapses, after Thorwald has made his way into the building. That, and the build-up to the door slowly opening is absolutely horrifying, as the viewer feels as powerless as Jeff does. Identifying with Jeff, we become paralyzed and defenseless.

I remember North by Northwest boring me. It is regarded as one of Hitchcock's best films, though. I should rewatch it.

I have no desire to rewatch Vertigo, though. What a disappointment.

Citizen Kane. What a godawful boring film. It took me two tries to make it all the way through. Just slightly less painful than The Godfather and LOTR trilogies.

I will admit the effectiveness of the scenes where Charles Foster Kane (I believe that was his name, been many years since I last saw it) wanders like a ghost through his huge mansion, though. Wealth divorced from values is worthless.

Marnie is Hitchcock's best film. NxNW is perfect except for its l...e...n...g...t...h. The 39 Steps, which I watched last night, is the film of which NxNW is a remake, and although it has some minor flaws, some stilted acting, it is one of his best. It can be seen for free on HULU. Vertigo could have been his best had it had a happy ending. Man Who Knew Too Much is also excellent. (I have only seen the remake with Stewart.) As for Rear Window, it is just too claustrophobic. It begs the question whether Stewart or his audience suffers more watching the horror unfold before them.

I've actually never watched Marnie.

A happy ending would have destroyed Vertigo. Nevertheless, the ending is awful, and quite possibly the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever seen in my life (am I the only one who cracks up over how random and abrupt it seems?).

See, that's what makes Rear Window so great. It fully engages the audience. You actually feel powerless and horrified watching it.

[kiaer.ts]

What other kinds of victims are there?

People victimized by others. Obviously.

Oh god, I'm certainly not going to sit and watch that film again in order to properly review it. I've seen death, murder, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bahsers, and a hell of a lot more. Brokeback Mountain is a patronizing look at "gay" men that will apeal to straight women. It succeeded on that basis. It's also laughable, in the way that the remake of Shaft, which "portrays" life on 138th street in the South Bronx (where I lived for six years) is laughable. You want to watch a good entertaining "gay" movie version of Thelma and Louise? Watch The Living End. You want to see reality? I would suggest watching Paris is Burning instead. These are not films made to make gays look good and sympathetic to straight people.

OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists?

Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used.

It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it.

Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of.

Poppers?

I think you will admit that BBM was described as if it humanized homosexuals for a wide audience. As far as I am concerned, it patronized homosexuals with two pretty actors who look ever so boy-next-doorish and unthreatening and wholesome as possible so as not to alienate a certain target demographic.

If you think it is worth watching, do you want to say why? If there is some good reason I actually should watch the whole thing, I will be happy to be corrected.

Did you watch the clips I suggested?

I was being a smart-ass. The characters in that setting and time period would not have been using poppers.

It humanized them, sure, but it didn't idealize them. Later in the film, Ennis del Mar in particular becomes quite violent around his wife, and he ends the film an embittered and broken man. Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) starts sleeping with prostitutes and grows distant from his family before he dies near the end of the film. The actors are pretty boys, yes, but the characters are not idealized. They're certainly not wholesome and unthreatening.

The cinematography is gorgeous (come on, watch some of the mountain scenes from a purely aesthetic standpoint). Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger both turn in riveting and heart-breaking performances as their respective characters. Moreover, the film never devolves into a slog about gay oppression at the hands of evil heteros. Like I said, it isn't about gay or straight. That element is not central to the core of the film. The film is majestic and lonely and unflinching in its analysis of its characters.

I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws. I rolled my eyes at some of the dialogue ('Ah wish ah knew how to quit you!' etc.). A few of the initial mountain scenes are a bit corny. Moreover, Gyllenhaal doesn't do a great job as Jack Twist. He's way too boyish for the role, and I never fully buy him as a 35+ year old man later in the film. Jack's wife Lureen never gets properly developed (Anne Hathaway is nowhere near as compelling in this role as Michelle Williams is playing Ennis' wife).

But compared to what it does right, these flaws are insubstantial.

It isn't the greatest film ever made, but it is superb, and I'd whole-heartedly recommend it to almost anybody.

Yes. The Living End looks terrific (by its trailer, at least). Not too sure about Paris is Building. I tend to avoid documentaries like the plague.

I judge movies by plot and theme. I don't see that this movie offers either. The last thing I would say about BBM, then, is what is it about? Mountain scenery? Making homosexuality sympathetic, and showing how men shouldn't force themselves into marriages? Is it just about two unhappy men? I quit my job and dropped out of school in order to move to the South Bronx to live with the love of my life. We lived as "gay terrorists," going to heavy metal concerts and making out in the mosh pit, threatening to beat up people who made queer bashing remarks, living as if the world belonged to us, with no shame, until he was murdered in a car jacking. I have been out to family friends and girlfriends since 14, before I was an Objectivist. Watching a film about two "gay" victims? Meh.

I really liked the film Donnie Darko with Gyllenhaal. It's an interesting sci-fi story. A dead teenager is offered one last month in which instead of living a life of conformist hypocrisy, he takes a different path. The film has flaws, it is very cynical in a typically leftist way, but it does skewer its targets. Gyllenhaal is certainly not a hero, but you can suspend disbelief and enjoy it.

[kiaer.ts]

I've actually never watched Marnie.

A happy ending would have destroyed Vertigo. Nevertheless, the ending is awful, and quite possibly the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever seen in my life (am I the only one who cracks up over how random and abrupt it seems?).

See, that's what makes Rear Window so great. It fully engages the audience. You actually feel powerless and horrified watching it.

Okay, well, watch Marnie ASAP. Sorry, I can't find it on line.

I did indeed find the ending of Vertigo laughable, but was more angered at it than amused. He could simply have overcome his fear and saved her as she clutched the bell tower ledge. That would have been a fine heroic ending. As for Rear Window, I would only feel powerless and horrified if I were stuck in a wheelchair and so couldn't change the channel or eject the movie.

Here is The 39 Steps

[Michelle]

What other kinds of victims are there?

People victimized by others. Obviously.

Oh god, I'm certainly not going to sit and watch that film again in order to properly review it. I've seen death, murder, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bahsers, and a hell of a lot more. Brokeback Mountain is a patronizing look at "gay" men that will apeal to straight women. It succeeded on that basis. It's also laughable, in the way that the remake of Shaft, which "portrays" life on 138th street in the South Bronx (where I lived for six years) is laughable. You want to watch a good entertaining "gay" movie version of Thelma and Louise? Watch The Living End. You want to see reality? I would suggest watching Paris is Burning instead. These are not films made to make gays look good and sympathetic to straight people.

OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists?

Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used.

It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it.

Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of.

Poppers?

I think you will admit that BBM was described as if it humanized homosexuals for a wide audience. As far as I am concerned, it patronized homosexuals with two pretty actors who look ever so boy-next-doorish and unthreatening and wholesome as possible so as not to alienate a certain target demographic.

If you think it is worth watching, do you want to say why? If there is some good reason I actually should watch the whole thing, I will be happy to be corrected.

Did you watch the clips I suggested?

I was being a smart-ass. The characters in that setting and time period would not have been using poppers.

It humanized them, sure, but it didn't idealize them. Later in the film, Ennis del Mar in particular becomes quite violent around his wife, and he ends the film an embittered and broken man. Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) starts sleeping with prostitutes and grows distant from his family before he dies near the end of the film. The actors are pretty boys, yes, but the characters are not idealized. They're certainly not wholesome and unthreatening.

The cinematography is gorgeous (come on, watch some of the mountain scenes from a purely aesthetic standpoint). Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger both turn in riveting and heart-breaking performances as their respective characters. Moreover, the film never devolves into a slog about gay oppression at the hands of evil heteros. Like I said, it isn't about gay or straight. That element is not central to the core of the film. The film is majestic and lonely and unflinching in its analysis of its characters.

I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws. I rolled my eyes at some of the dialogue ('Ah wish ah knew how to quit you!' etc.). A few of the initial mountain scenes are a bit corny. Moreover, Gyllenhaal doesn't do a great job as Jack Twist. He's way too boyish for the role, and I never fully buy him as a 35+ year old man later in the film. Jack's wife Lureen never gets properly developed (Anne Hathaway is nowhere near as compelling in this role as Michelle Williams is playing Ennis' wife).

But compared to what it does right, these flaws are insubstantial.

It isn't the greatest film ever made, but it is superb, and I'd whole-heartedly recommend it to almost anybody.

Yes. The Living End looks terrific (by its trailer, at least). Not too sure about Paris is Building. I tend to avoid documentaries like the plague.

I judge movies by plot and theme. I don't see that this movie offers either. The last thing I would say about BBM, then, is what is it about? Mountain scenery? Making homosexuality sympathetic, and showing how men shouldn't force themselves into marriages? Is it just about two unhappy men? I quit my job and dropped out of school in order to move to the South Bronx to live with the love of my life. We lived as "gay terrorists," going to heavy metal concerts and making out in the mosh pit, threatening to beat up people who made queer bashing remarks, living as if the world belonged to us, with no shame, until he was murdered in a car jacking. I have been out to family friends and girlfriends since 14, before I was an Objectivist. Watching a film about two "gay" victims? Meh.

I really liked the film Donnie Darko with Gyllenhaal. It's an interesting sci-fi story. A dead teenager is offered one last month in which instead of living a life of conformist hypocrisy, he takes a different path. The film has flaws, it is very cynical in a typically leftist way, but it does skewer its targets. Gyllenhaal is certainly not a hero, but you can suspend disbelief and enjoy it.

The film isn't about gay victims though. Ennis del Mar is the heart of the film. He meets a young man for a job on a mountain, falls in love, denies this love because of his fears, cultivates a phony family life around him, and spends the rest of his life in growing misery as his growing love for that man haunts his existence. He is several times offered a chance at redemption by Jack (who wants them to live together), but Ennis fears for his life and Jack's life and ends up as a bitter shell of a man who was so afraid of death and violence that he never learned to experience love and happiness. It is, in essence, a cautionary tale, and a character study. You've never met people who have been so deathly afraid of life's possibilities that they never learned to truly live? I see it all the time. If you don't like films that have a negative theme, you probably won't like this one. It isn't a film about gay victims, though. I can appreciate how your experience would make you bitter to sanitized media portraits of homosexuality, but this film isn't about the "gay experience" (god I hate that phrase, but there you go). Now, take something like The Birdcage. That's more the type of film that deserves your ire.

Only plot and theme? That's one of our differences, I think. I don't mind something with a lack of content if it is expertly made and engaging (although I do not think BBM falls into this category). Take Kill Bill volume one. Very, very silly film, but it is wacky, inventive, and generally fun as hell to watch. Groundbreaking? No. But a damned good watch. Not art, but expert escapism.

I wouldn't call Donnie Darko sci-fi. More like dark fantasy. It was okay, but not as great as people led me to believe it was. The theme of authenticity wasn't well-presented, and the experimental aspects feel contrived. I still enjoy it, but it isn't one of my favorites. David Lynch is a better 'experimental' filmmaker.

[Michelle]

I've actually never watched Marnie.

A happy ending would have destroyed Vertigo. Nevertheless, the ending is awful, and quite possibly the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever seen in my life (am I the only one who cracks up over how random and abrupt it seems?).

See, that's what makes Rear Window so great. It fully engages the audience. You actually feel powerless and horrified watching it.

Okay, well, watch Marnie ASAP. Sorry, I can't find it on line.

I did indeed find the ending of Vertigo laughable, but was more angered at it than amused. He could simply have overcome his fear and saved her as she clutched the bell tower ledge. That would have been a fine heroic ending. As for Rear Window, I would only feel powerless and horrified if I were stuck in a wheelchair and so couldn't change the channel or eject the movie.

Here is The 39 Steps

Most films don't have heroic themes. This includes Vertigo. The film was a study in obsession and illusion, and the film's internal logic demanded an unhappy resolution.

But it wasn't really a resolution, was it? Scary nun walks up. She tips off over the bell tower ledge. SPLAT. We see the nun isn't so scary after all. Ferguson looks over the edge. THE END. Great end to that boorish slog of a film.

Have you seen Hitchcock's "Rope?"

Edited June 29, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

The film isn't about gay victims though. Ennis del Mar is the heart of the film. He meets a young man for a job on a mountain, falls in love, denies this love because of his fears, cultivates a phony family life around him, and spends the rest of his life in growing misery as his growing love for that man haunts his existence. He is several times offered a chance at redemption by Jack (who wants them to live together), but Ennis fears for his life and Jack's life and ends up as a bitter shell of a man who was so afraid of death and violence that he never learned to experience love and happiness. It is, in essence, a cautionary tale, and a character study. You've never met people who have been so deathly afraid of life's possibilities that they never learned to truly live? I see it all the time. If you don't like films that have a negative theme, you probably won't like this one. It isn't a film about gay victims, though. I can appreciate how your experience would make you bitter to sanitized media portraits of homosexuality, but this film isn't about the "gay experience" (god I hate that phrase, but there you go). Now, take something like The Birdcage. That's more the type of film that deserves your ire.

Only plot and theme? That's one of our differences, I think. I don't mind something with a lack of content if it is expertly made and engaging (although I do not think BBM falls into this category). Take Kill Bill volume one. Very, very silly film, but it is wacky, inventive, and generally fun as hell to watch. Groundbreaking? No. But a damned good watch. Not art, but expert escapism.

I wouldn't call Donnie Darko sci-fi. More like dark fantasy. It was okay, but not as great as people led me to believe it was. The theme of authenticity wasn't well-presented, and the experimental aspects feel contrived. I still enjoy it, but it isn't one of my favorites. David Lynch is a better 'experimental' filmmaker.

Okay, the Birdcage? You got me there, indeed, I choked when I read that. Yes, I'd rather watch BBM and Rear Window back to back for a week straight than one sitting of The Birdcage.

As for "bitter to" above, the proper word would have been "contemptuous of."

I can very strongly recommend the film Bound with Jennifer Tilly as the gangster's moll and Gina Gershon as the lesbian handyman who wins her heart. The movie is a smart gangster movie and it has the added gimmick of the hero being a very attractive lesbian rather than a man.

Rope is horrible. The characters are scum. Hitchcock should not have expected his audience to identify with them. I found the movie pretentious and insulting, and boring as well.

[Michelle]

The film isn't about gay victims though. Ennis del Mar is the heart of the film. He meets a young man for a job on a mountain, falls in love, denies this love because of his fears, cultivates a phony family life around him, and spends the rest of his life in growing misery as his growing love for that man haunts his existence. He is several times offered a chance at redemption by Jack (who wants them to live together), but Ennis fears for his life and Jack's life and ends up as a bitter shell of a man who was so afraid of death and violence that he never learned to experience love and happiness. It is, in essence, a cautionary tale, and a character study. You've never met people who have been so deathly afraid of life's possibilities that they never learned to truly live? I see it all the time. If you don't like films that have a negative theme, you probably won't like this one. It isn't a film about gay victims, though. I can appreciate how your experience would make you bitter to sanitized media portraits of homosexuality, but this film isn't about the "gay experience" (god I hate that phrase, but there you go). Now, take something like The Birdcage. That's more the type of film that deserves your ire.

Only plot and theme? That's one of our differences, I think. I don't mind something with a lack of content if it is expertly made and engaging (although I do not think BBM falls into this category). Take Kill Bill volume one. Very, very silly film, but it is wacky, inventive, and generally fun as hell to watch. Groundbreaking? No. But a damned good watch. Not art, but expert escapism.

I wouldn't call Donnie Darko sci-fi. More like dark fantasy. It was okay, but not as great as people led me to believe it was. The theme of authenticity wasn't well-presented, and the experimental aspects feel contrived. I still enjoy it, but it isn't one of my favorites. David Lynch is a better 'experimental' filmmaker.

Okay, the Birdcage? You got me there, indeed, I choked when I read that. Yes, I'd rather watch BBM and Rear Window back to back for a week straight than one sitting of The Birdcage.

As for "bitter to" above, the proper word would have been "contemptuous of."

I can very strongly recommend the film Bound with Jennifer Tilly as the gangster's moll and Gina Gershon as the lesbian handyman who wins her heart. The movie is a smart gangster movie and it has the added gimmick of the hero being a very attractive lesbian rather than a man.

Rope is horrible. The characters are scum. Hitchcock should not have expected his audience to identify with them. I found the movie pretentious and insulting, and boring as well.

I thought that allusion would make its mark.

Media portrayals of homosexuals do tend to be overall less offensive than media portrayals of transsexuals, though. Films like Normal and Transamerica are just painful to watch. Not to mention The World According to Garp.

There are, of course, things like Ma Vie En Rose and Boys Don't Cry (the latter left a bad taste in my mouth, but it at least treats its subject with dignity).

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

EDIT: I'll check out that movie you mentioned. Sounds intriguing.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Ted:

Yes looks real good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljF5HS_qMK4

[kiaer.ts]

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

What do you take me for? I studiously avoid most gay themes. Especially leftist dribble that makes Reagan out as some sort of monster. I get enough drama with so-called Objectivists with their cattiness, lack of self-awareness and territoriality. I like Bound, for instance, for the plot and because Jennifer Tilly is one of the sexiest living actresses, and so was Gina Gershon before the nose job. I enjoyed Amistead Maupin's Tales of the City miniseries which was great because of its complex dramatic plotting and exuberant sense of life. Other than that I don't watch Will and Grace, and I prefer South Park's take on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Here is the full

miniseries. (PBS's highest rated show ever.) I most strongly recommend it to everyone here. Rand would have loved the drama and plot twists; murder, blackmail, love triangles, mistaken identity. That some of the characters are homosexual is secondary to the drama.

[kiaer.ts]

Ted:

Yes looks real good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljF5HS_qMK4

Adam, I refrained from posting that clip since it just shows the come-on without the plot set up. The movie isn't soft porn, which you might think from that scene. Check out Tales of the city from my post above.

[Michelle]

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

What do you take me for?

You read too much into simple questions.

I haven't seen it. I wondered if you had. That's all.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Not intended for that effect.

Not at all a porn angle.

I had heard about the film.

I was amazed at the kinesics and the sink.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

What do you take me for?

You read too much into simple questions.

I haven't seen it. I wondered if you had. That's all.

I was not offended by the question, just surprised. I assumed you knew somewhat about the series. I hope you read the whole post:

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

What do you take me for? I studiously avoid most gay themes. Especially leftist dribble that makes Reagan out as some sort of monster. I get enough drama with so-called Objectivists with their cattiness, lack of self-awareness and territoriality. I like Bound, for instance, for the plot and because Jennifer Tilly is one of the sexiest living actresses, and so was Gina Gershon before the nose job. I enjoyed Amistead Maupin's Tales of the City miniseries which was great because of its complex dramatic plotting and exuberant sense of life. Other than that I don't watch Will and Grace, and I prefer South Park's take on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Here is the full

miniseries. (PBS's highest rated show ever.) I most strongly recommend it to everyone here. Rand would have loved the drama and plot twists; murder, blackmail, love triangles, mistaken identity. That some of the characters are homosexual is secondary to the drama.

I really do most strongly recommend Tales of the City. Based on the miniseries, I would assume had I read the novel it might be one of my favorites, ever. Indeed, I'm going to order it now.

Oh, duh, I think you must think the reference to cattiness, and territoriality was to you? No, not at all. And remember, you are not an Objectivist, even so-called.

[Michelle]

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

What do you take me for?

You read too much into simple questions.

I haven't seen it. I wondered if you had. That's all.

I was not offended by the question, just surprised. I assumed you knew somewhat about the series. I hope you read the whole post:

Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America?

What do you take me for? I studiously avoid most gay themes. Especially leftist dribble that makes Reagan out as some sort of monster. I get enough drama with so-called Objectivists with their cattiness, lack of self-awareness and territoriality. I like Bound, for instance, for the plot and because Jennifer Tilly is one of the sexiest living actresses, and so was Gina Gershon before the nose job. I enjoyed Amistead Maupin's Tales of the City miniseries which was great because of its complex dramatic plotting and exuberant sense of life. Other than that I don't watch Will and Grace, and I prefer South Park's take on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Here is the full

miniseries. (PBS's highest rated show ever.) I most strongly recommend it to everyone here. Rand would have loved the drama and plot twists; murder, blackmail, love triangles, mistaken identity. That some of the characters are homosexual is secondary to the drama.

I really do most strongly recommend Tales of the City. Based on the miniseries, I would assume had I read the novel it might be one of my favorites, ever. Indeed, I'm going to order it now.

Oh, duh, I think you must think the reference to cattiness, and territoriality was to you? No, not at all. And remember, you are not an Objectivist, even so-called.

Don't worry about offending me. I'm a tough girl, believe it or not. And besides, I'll know if you're insulting me, because there will be no ambiguity about it. Remember?

Oh god, no, I know you weren't talking about me. I assumed you meant the millions of warring clans of Objectivists.

I know very little about Angels in America. Something about prophets and AIDS. Never really took the chance to read up more about it. I figured you'd probably seen it, so I asked you. It seems I was right.

My brother-in-law has just about every TV show ever made. I'll check with him and see if he has that series.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

Oh. V For Vendetta. Terrific movie. I actually prefer it over the GN. I've never been much of a Moore fan. The Wachowski Bros turn it into a slick and enjoyable action flick.

[Selene]

Michelle:

V For Vendetta

Yep brilliant movie.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

My brother-in-law has just about every TV show ever made. I'll check with him and see if he has that series.

Are you opposed to YouTube? They have the series in full and good quality

.

[Michelle]

My brother-in-law has just about every TV show ever made. I'll check with him and see if he has that series.

Are you opposed to YouTube? They have the series in full and good quality

.

Nope. I just live in the boonies here in Tennessee. So all we can get out here is satellite.

[Michelle]

Michelle:

V For Vendetta

Yep brilliant movie.

Adam

The film has a bit of an irritating leftist streak, but it is still pretty good.

I will admit to loving how the Wachowski Bros turned the voice of fate into a parody of Rush Limbaugh, though

[Selene]

Michelle:

V For Vendetta

Yep brilliant movie.

Adam

The film has a bit of an irritating leftist streak, but it is still pretty good.

I will admit to loving how the Wachowski Bros turned the voice of fate into a parody of Rush Limbaugh, though

Ahh the 20 million listener man - yes really good satire, an art form I love.

[Michelle]

Michelle:

V For Vendetta

Yep brilliant movie.

Adam

The film has a bit of an irritating leftist streak, but it is still pretty good.

I will admit to loving how the Wachowski Bros turned the voice of fate into a parody of Rush Limbaugh, though

Ahh the 20 million listener man - yes really good satire, an art form I love.

Satire only really works in the context of something meaningful, though. The Fountainhead and the film version of V For Vendetta both include copious amounts of social and political satire. And they work, because both of these are ultimately about more than what they're making fun of.

This is one of the reasons why Catch-22 is crap.