Resurrecting the Movies thread...

[Front-Ranger]

Reminds me of that sculpture I saw in The New Yorker of the guy making love with himself...about nine times, LOL!

[oilgun]

^^I like when, after the first kiss, he seems to ask "You want more?", lol!"^^^

OMG!  What a wonderfully insane movie this is!  Imagine THE RED SHOES via Polanski's REPULSION and Cronenberg's THE FLY, then add a dash of SHOWGIRLS and you have the best Holiday movie of 2010.  Some people complain that the film is too over-the-top but I think it works beautifully.  I mean, I was humming Tchaikovsky for the rest of the day, lol!  Easily makes my top ten list.

[Jeff Wrangler]

^^I like when, after the first kiss, he seems to ask "You want more?", lol!"^^^

OMG!  What a wonderfully insane movie this is!  Imagine THE RED SHOES via Polanski's REPULSION and Cronenberg's THE FLY, then add a dash of SHOWGIRLS and you have the best Holiday movie of 2010.  Some people complain that the film is too over-the-top but I think it works beautifully.  I mean, I was humming Tchaikovsky for the rest of the day, lol!  Easily makes my top ten list.

Friday night somebody asked me if I was going to see it. I said I didn't know if I needed to see Natalie Portman simulate masturbation and Lesbian sex with Mila Kunis.

[delalluvia]

Friday night somebody asked me if I was going to see it. I said I didn't know if I needed to see Natalie Portman simulate masturbation and Lesbian sex with Mila Kunis.

Oh, man, are you kidding me? 

[grumps]  I was pretty excited to go see this, but now I'm wondering if my seeing it will go against my belief that such scenes - especially between lovely young women - is just titillation put in movies by male producer/director/writers.

Now I have heard that Natalie Portman considers herself bisexual, but I don't know if that's true or not.  If true, then I can justify seeing it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Oh, man, are you kidding me?  

I read that in the review that was in Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer.

[grumps]  I was pretty excited to go see this, but now I'm wondering if my seeing it will go against my belief that such scenes - especially between lovely young women - is just titillation put in movies by male producer/director/writers.

Now I have heard that Natalie Portman considers herself bisexual, but I don't know if that's true or not.  If true, then I can justify seeing it.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here, but if it works for you, that's what matters.

[oilgun]

I read that in the review that was in Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer.

It must have been a negative review.  It's usually the critics who didn't like the film that focus on  those scenes.

Anyway, you guys are funny, letting a little lesbian content prevent you from seeing a film, lol!

[delalluvia]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here, but if it works for you, that's what matters.

Well, my thinking is is because if she were a bisexual, I doubt she would have done the scene had she considered it exploitive.  Natalie Portman does not HAVE to work for anyone.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I read that in the review that was in Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here, but if it works for you, that's what matters.

I see I told a lie. I double checked, and that review wasn't in the Inquirer. I know I read it somewhere. It must have been in the Metro.

But it was an unfavorable review. I remember the writer thinks the movie is rather "over the top."

[Jeff Wrangler]

Friday night somebody asked me if I was going to see it. I said I didn't know if I needed to see Natalie Portman simulate masturbation and Lesbian sex with Mila Kunis.

Of course, now I see in this morning's Philadelphia edition of the Metro that Natalie Portman also gets to have fake sex with Sergio Torrado, one of the principal dancers from the Pennsylvania Ballet. Seeing that just might be worth the price of admission. ... 

[delalluvia]

Watched the movie, Creation about Charles Darwin, starring real life married couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly.

6/10

While I appreciate that the producers tried a different tack with Darwin, trying to humanize him and making him 'user friendly' for the masses by focusing on his personal life (the movie was based on the book Annie's Box), it didn't really make the impact it should have because you don't really get into the public reaction to his writings, so it's all on a personal and local level and thus rather soap-opera/movie-of-the-week-ish. I found myself wanting more on the conflict in his writings and publishing as I believe that would have been even more dramatic and worthy of the movie. There were lines that were really intriguing that SHOULD have been explored in the movie,

"I see you've received Wallace's letter? Forget it. He has 20 pages, you have a book."

"Your enemies - and you have them - are ready to burn you at the stake if they knew what you were about to publish."

"But you need to publish. We can win this in our lifetime. We must win."

but weren't and it's a shame. The makers of the movie had the production values and talented actors to make a powerful movie, but they underutilized them and wimped out, IMO. A shameful waste of talent.