Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Alex

My problem is that it wasn't good sex, it was simply acrobatic. I'll admit it would have been good if it were consensual and freely entered into. Maybe I'm flawed that I can't separate the motivation for the sex from the acts itself to find the latter at all erotic.

The first two weren't meant to be good. The third was essentially rape, and the other two were somewhat ambiguous in light of the third.

Unless the point was that she is simply a sexual submissive who enjoyed the rape and wanted more, in which case that wasn't sufficiently clear to remove my psychic issues with it being forced and/or manipulated.

I can separate my feelings about the sex they were having from what they were supposedly feeling. I would agree that he sexually assaulted her that first time, and she evidently did not enjoy that. But whatever her motivation (or their motivation), their acrobatics were certainly orgasmic for both later on. In the characters eyes, the sex was highly pleasurable. It was an intimacy forged by pleasure in the fiery pits of Mordor, and it clearly clouded her judgment.

I did find some of their scenes erotic. But I felt similarly about The Night Porter, which I think is a superior film.

I also found some of the sex scenes difficult to watch in Lust, Caution because I was convinced they were actually having sex. Even if they weren't, the director went to great lengths to make it appear so, and instead of bringing me further into the story, I found myself distracted. Are they or aren't they? Is he commenting on art versus pornography or is that what I'm bringing to the table? Yup, totally ripped me out of the film.

[Alex]

I also didn't find anything in The Night Porter particularly erotic (or believable for that matter). But I'd say that generally the more explicit filmed sex is the less erotic I find it.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Alex

I also didn't find anything in The Night Porter particularly erotic (or believable for that matter). But I'd say that generally the more explicit filmed sex is the less erotic I find it.

I tend to agree with your latter statement.

[Snowflake]

That's no big deal, because Klaatu looks on everything dispassionately. Maybe he has no passions. He becomes the first co-star in movie history to elude falling in love with Jennifer Connelly. Keanu Reeves is often low-key in his roles, but in this movie, his piano has no keys at all. He is so solemn, detached and uninvolved he makes Mr. Spock look like Hunter S. Thompson at closing time. When he arrives at a momentous decision, he announces it as if he has been rehearsing to say: "Yes, one plus one equals two. Always has, always will."

Ouch!

I love Roger Ebert sometimes. Complete review here.

I can not only not believe they remade this, but I did not know it was even in production. Hopefully it slides out of the theaters as quietly and people rent the original. Yes, Michael Rennie is also a tad wooden, but I had Gort nightmares for years.......and it had the awesome Bernard Hermann score.

[Alex]

I'll Sleep When I'm Dead - I suppose I should be pleased that I sat through this movie saying "is this some kind of Get Carter rip-off?" only to see at the end that this one is from Mike Hodges who also did Get Carter. Clive Owen is the closest I come to having a man crush, and even with scruffy beard and too big clothes he looks good. But the movie is one long slog, seemingly taking three times too long in every scene and very minimal payoff.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Ouch!

I love Roger Ebert sometimes. Complete review here.

I can not only not believe they remade this, but I did not know it was even in production. Hopefully it slides out of the theaters as quietly and people rent the original. Yes, Michael Rennie is also a tad wooden, but I had Gort nightmares for years.......and it had the awesome Bernard Hermann score.

I have no desire to see the remake. I'm not against remakes, but I am horrified (by what I've read and seen) at the idea of this one. The first movie is so understated and quietly beautiful. I'm just...I don't want to see it.

And then I realized Jon Hamm also stars. So, I probably will see it. Someday. Just not in theaters.

[Alex]

I liked the underlying lack of altruism in the first one ("we don't care if you blow yourself up, but we aren't going to let you advance far enough to threaten us") so am not pleased, in concept, to what is apparently pure altruism in this one ("oh what are you doing to your poor planet?").

[Gemini Cricket]

Watched Dark Knight on DVD last night. Ledger's performance is still awesome to me. It's... dark.

[Andrew]

Inspired by this SFGate blog post, I found Without a Clue on TPB, downloaded and burned it, and we watched it Thursday night. I don't remember ever having seen it though I vaguely remember hearing about it. Clever and fun reworking of the Holmes/Watson story.

[flippyshark]

I never saw Without A Clue, but I remember that the newspaper ads had a 1-800 number you could call to hear a special message from Watson. I called, and found the message tedious, so, I decided not to see the movie. Memorably bad marketing, that.