The Girl Next Door

Started by Film Student, February 02, 2004, 06:56:03 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

GoneSavage

#30
April 11, 2004, 11:19:43 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: Chest RockwellElisha Cuthbert was fantastic, but I probably say that mainly because she's quite hot.

Apparently that's all actresses are good for nowadays.

Christ MG, gimme a break.  I'm sure you have a penis too.

cine

#31
April 11, 2004, 11:20:58 AM
Quote from: GoneSavage
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: Chest RockwellElisha Cuthbert was fantastic, but I probably say that mainly because she's quite hot.
Apparently that's all actresses are good for nowadays.
Christ MG, gimme a break.  I'm sure you have a penis too.
Yeah, but he doesn't think with his penis 24/7. That's the difference.

GoneSavage

#32
April 11, 2004, 12:38:09 PM
This board needs to lighten up.  Saying an actress is hot is not degrading to the art of cinema.

cine

#33
April 11, 2004, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: GoneSavageThis board needs to lighten up.  Saying an actress is hot is not degrading to the art of cinema.
It's degrading to the actress in question. This is a male-dominant board so it's not surprising that you're trying to stand up for the guys. It's okay; when you're older you'll criticize female actresses as actresses and not models.

Chest Rockwell

#34
April 11, 2004, 02:37:58 PM
This is ridiculous. I tried ending my little review with a little joke and it apparently backfired. She really did perform well, creating at once a likable sweetheart and a corrupted girl who became a pornographic actress. Is that what you wanted? I don't see why I'm the target of this since I generally don't factor in an actress's looks into anything. I like all of my favorite actresses for their abilities above all; if she doesn't affect me from her performance, then I'll feel nothing for her (see: Britney Spears, Paris Hilton).

Ghostboy

#35
April 11, 2004, 10:49:31 PM
Having just read all this...I think what Chest said was funny.

pete

#36
April 11, 2004, 11:41:58 PM
yeah, if so much of the time, money, and effort is spent pre-, during, and post-production to make the actress look hot, then pointing out the hotness of the actress would be every bit as relevant as any other areas of criticism towards the film.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Gold Trumpet

#37
April 11, 2004, 11:56:28 PM
Enjoyable little film. I wasn't really aware of the hotness of Elisha Cuthbert before today, but sign me up as a fan. The asshole qualities of the porno boyfriend was funny and I liked how when the main boy was on ecatasy, no one bothered wiping off the blood below his nose. John Hughes, not. American Pie, yes. The charm of the John Hughes are sorely lacking these days though I must say but fuck, I got what I expected here.

SoNowThen

#38
April 12, 2004, 02:51:34 PM
Quote from: Cinebunny
Quote from: GoneSavageThis board needs to lighten up.  Saying an actress is hot is not degrading to the art of cinema.
It's degrading to the actress in question.

Nope, it's not.


"The history of cinema is boys photgraphing girls". Jean-Luc Godard, no less.

Also, before we all go on a rant about degrading women, keep in mind this is in a thread about a movie whose whole purpose is to sell tickets to a predominantly male audience by showing scantily clad young females, so defending the film or the actresses in it, well, I dunno...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

MacGuffin

#39
April 12, 2004, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenAlso, before we all go on a rant about degrading women...

Save your words. I really don't expect anyone to agree with me, seeing as I (and Cinephile) seem to be the only one tired of reading reviews that just bring a movie down to how bangable the lead actress is, or how nice Angelina's Jolie's boobs are, how hot Kate Winslet was with red hair or blue, or how actress threads just rate what movie they looked the hottest in; discussing their body instead of body of work. So when someone says the board should lighten up, they really mean me because I'm actually in the minority here when it comes to this. You guys have your fun, keep doing what you're doing, because I was never singling anyone out or  telling anyone to stop. Just expressing a personal view that I will now keep to myself.

Back to the reviews...
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pas

#40
April 12, 2004, 04:29:29 PM
If Chest's comment was out of place, what do you think of the strippers dancing on poles at the premiere of the movie ?

cine

#41
April 12, 2004, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: Pas RapportIf Chest's comment was out of place, what do you think of the strippers dancing on poles at the premiere of the movie ?
Good form.

SoNowThen

#42
April 13, 2004, 08:58:58 AM
Anyway, to get back on track:

I saw this yesterday. Wasn't expecting to be blown away. I wasn't. The plot flew by with the standard moments, there only because they needed to be, and barely fashioned into "scenes", and pasted together with (as Ghostboy already said) a soundtrack that was much too cool for the movie. The little tip of the hat to Goodfellas was ballsy. Mostly the characters were stock, the situations were hokey, and the technical stuff was all quite blah. So why did I love it so much? Because when you get right down to it, the idea of a regular Joe underdog type smart highschool guy having a goddess like Cuthbert basically fall into his lap and love him -- well, I'm weak, what can I say, it's the dream. I've tried writing this movie so many times (oddly enough, with a very similar soundtrack -- they stole my Ashcroft song, the bastards!!), yet mine always ends with the guy not getting the girl. And I look at it, and say "no one will want to see this". And maybe it's true, considering the movie would lick extreme balls without the fact that we can smile at the guy getting the girl. Though, the interesting twist in this one is that, I guess, he pretty much has her from the start. So we happily don't have to put up with any bullshit monologue at the 3/4 mark about how he convinces her that he loves her. Well, we kinda have to put up with a bunch of crappy speeches and stuff, but they just whisk those by pretty fast.

And a quick word about Cuthbert, notwithstanding the recent hoopla around here about my actress rating system. She's Alberta pride, and I've always been aware of her, but never been that much of a fan, just because I don't have time to check out 24 yet. But I went into this wanting to love her. As a beauty and a performer. As someone I could long to work with perhaps. But I dunno, she didn't have a whole hell of a lot to do here. I guess those naysayers are right, no one really is writing any good parts for gals nowadays. And if they are "meaty" roles, then they -- almost as a prerequisite -- aren't allowed to be sexy. So here, Elisha has presence. She makes us fall in love with her, to be sure. But I'm an easy sell in that regard. I'd like to think with a deeper role she could be this beautiful AND create a character that would live on in movie-dom for awhile. Can't say that about this one, though. She was, however, and remains, a BABE. So if you're down with that, go enjoy this flick. It's a little smile.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#43
April 13, 2004, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: Cinebunny
Quote from: GoneSavageThis board needs to lighten up.  Saying an actress is hot is not degrading to the art of cinema.
It's degrading to the actress in question.

Nope, it's not.

Yes, it is. And more importantly: It's degrading to those of us on this board who expect a degree of intelligence and relevance to the discourse, and it's degrading to the poster, who is undermining any actual thoughts they might have on the film or the performance that have anything to do with anything.

Quote from: SoNowThen
"The history of cinema is boys photgraphing girls". Jean-Luc Godard, no less.

Also, before we all go on a rant about degrading women, keep in mind this is in a thread about a movie whose whole purpose is to sell tickets to a predominantly male audience by showing scantily clad young females, so defending the film or the actresses in it, well, I dunno...

It's telling that you seem to interpret Godard's quote as endorsing that state of affairs rather than criticizing it (when have we known Godard to endorse before criticizing or at least only seeming to endorse while actually slyly criticizing?).

You're right about the very concept of this film being rather degrading to the audience, male (whose stupidity is being implied) and female (whose personhood beyond being an object is being ignored) alike, though. Porn is morally superior to insidious things like this.

I think it's folly to bring the looks or "hotness" of any male or female actor into a criticism of their performance, unless they've been made to look a way that you feel doesn't match with the character. Movies where the "hotness" of any character is a serious factor usually bore the hell out of me, but also: When someone focuses on something so subjective as to be irrelevant, it tends to make me skeptical of their critical faculties.

Bottom line: If someone can't write an analysis/critique/opinion of a film without saying, "Oh, and ___'s body was HOT!" that terminally taxes my willingness to take anything they say seriously. I mean, why should I? They're not being serious, after all- they're just indulging themselves in a literally masturbatory way.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#44
April 13, 2004, 04:36:50 PM
I guess this is (yet another case of :) ) where you and I differ.

As a hopeful future filmmaker, the hotness of my lead actress is of paramount importance. Also, I wouldn't call porn "morally superior" to this movie, but I see what you're getting at.

And to get all off course, in regards the Godard quote, I think he did his share of objectifying, sometimes with nothing more than his dick in mind. Which is fine by me, most great male filmmakers used their cock as their muse. You can't tell me that JLG wasn't fucking Anna K with his camera in Petit Soldat.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions