After reading an interview with the director at AICN, I'm actually really excited about this movie... sounds like it could be another "Fast Times" or "Risky Business"... The soundtrack alone will have me in line on opening day; apparently someone raided my CD collection for this movie, and I'm very very happy about it (Elliott Smith, Jeff Buckley, Nick Drake, David Bowie, The Who, Jesus and Mary Chain... I mean, good god... this could very well achieve Cameron Crowe-level greatness)...
Anyway, thoughts?
Judging from the trailer, I thought it would suck major ass, but damn, that's a good soundtrack.
I saw a sneak preview of it and I enjoyed it. The acting, direction, and music are all a notch above what you would expect for a teen comedy. The "Risky Business" comparisons are apt. The main kid in the movie (who I didn't really like in "The Emperor's Club") did a good job, and his two friends were amusing too. Elisha Cuthbert really didn't have to do much except look hot, but she did that well. Timothy Olyphant ("Go") is hilarious in his role; his is the standout performance of the movie for sure.
If I had to offer one complaint, it would be that I thought the movie was a little long for a comedy of this type. The cut that I saw was a little shy of two hours long. I'm not sure if they're going to cut anything out before it comes out on March 12th. It's not that I didn't enjoy the movie, it's just that near the end I was kind of noticing that it was getting a little long.
There's probably a few extraneous scenes they can take out without hurting the movie too much.
I saw the trailer for this in front of "50 First Dates" and thought, "When did they remake Risky Business?" Now I see I'm not the only one:
Quote from: Film Studentsounds like it could be another "Fast Times" or "Risky Business"...
Quote from: FishbulbThe "Risky Business" comparisons are apt.
Trailer
here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/girl_next_door/)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thezreview.co.uk%2Fposters%2Fposterimages%2Fgirlnextdoorthe.jpg&hash=4b7df2088433da7efd85285b0d7b61a6760fc0a8)
Release Date: April 9th, 2004 (wide)
Cast: Elisha Cuthbert (Danielle), Emile Hirsch (Matthew Goodman), Timothy Olyphant (Kelly), James Remar (Hugo Posh), Maria Arce (Chloe), Nicholas Downs (Bob), Paul Franklin Dano (Klitz), Dane Garretson (Ryan Wenger), Brandon Irons (Troy), Brian Kolodziej (Derek Miller), Sung Hi Lee (Ferrari), Ulysses Lee (Samnang), Chris Marquette (Eli), Autumn Reeser, Laird Stuart (Mr. Ruether), Amanda Swisten (April), Nicholas Thomas (Glenn), Olivia Wade (Whitney Parker), Jacob Young (Hunter)
Director: Luke Greenfield (The Animal)
Screenwriter: David Wagner and Brent Goldberg (writing team of National Lampoon's Van Wilder) and Stuart Blumberg (Keeping the Faith)
Premise: An ambitious high school senior, Matthew (Hirsch), with dreams of a career in politics is overjoyed to discover that his new neighbor, 19-year-old Danielle (Cuthbert), is absolutely beautiful, and they fall in love quickly, head over heels. Their relationship is put to the test, however when he discovers (along with the rest of the town, eventually) that she used to be a... porn star (Olyphant plays her ex-boyfriend; Remar plays a skin flick producer she used to work for).
To make this kind of movie, have it be fucking rated R, and not have Kim Bauer getting naked is like bringing a knife to a gunfight (sorry, 'Untouchables' on the brain). Just stupid stupid stupid.
I really liked the trailer, for two reasons: the music and Ms. Cuthbert. There's a chance that I'll really like the movie...and I've never seen Risky Business, so perhaps it'll seem completely fresh to me..
yeah for some reason this trailer is reall appealing to me as well. I really dig the use of music and the cheesy tagline does not even bother me. I think the FvJ kid looks pretty funny in this.
Cuthbert = goddess
May I stress, yet again, that she is an Alberta girl. Oh yes, that's right. Come to the prairies, folks. Land of milk and honey.
Or beer and chicks.
Whatever.
So why is this rated R then???
Quote from: SoNowThen
So why is this rated R then???
theres nudity
heres a link to a rated r trailer with some of the nudity
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2003080001-2004091134,00.html
i heard that the nudity is in a good John Hughes kind of way and not in a teen gross out comedy kind of way
well i guess i stated that wrong. Joblo's review said that the movie itself was more of a John Hughes teen sex comedy as appose to the gross out type teen comedies that have become so popular. So no i am not dissapointed and am really looking forward to this movie.
heres a pic that will help promote the movie
"Dude!"
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maximonline.com%2Fgirls%2Felisha_cuthbert_2%2Fgm_l1.jpg&hash=2cd074663f4a62319d37bfac63d5f06d74ed53fb)
"I know"
so... I'M seeing this movie.
Quote from: Bankyi heard that the nudity is in a good John Hughes kind of way and not in a teen gross out comedy kind of way
Quote from: BankyJoblo's review said that the movie itself was more of a John Hughes teen sex comedy
:yabbse-huh: What John Hughes movies are these people watching? Nudity is non-existant in a Hughes film, and it's not like "Sixteen Candles" or "Weird Science" is "Porkys" or "Losin' It."
The UK trailer plus the American trailer makes me want to see the movie even more.
Weirdly I can't wait to see this. Like, only a little less than KB2
Can someone clarify, cos I'm at work: Cuthbert is nude in this movie / uk trailer???
In the UK trailer, no. In the movie, yes (from reviews I've read), although apparently it was shot in a way that leaves open the possibility of a body double.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Bankyi heard that the nudity is in a good John Hughes kind of way and not in a teen gross out comedy kind of way
Quote from: BankyJoblo's review said that the movie itself was more of a John Hughes teen sex comedy
:yabbse-huh: What John Hughes movies are these people watching? Nudity is non-existant in a Hughes film, and it's not like "Sixteen Candles" or "Weird Science" is "Porkys" or "Losin' It."
thats why i restated. It can still be a teen sex comedy without nudity.
for GB and Mac
Quote from: JobloI saw THE GIRL NEXT DOOR a few weeks ago and really enjoyed it. The film had its problems (it ran a little too long and had some odd-feeling scenarios interlaced within all the comedy), but it took me right back to the 80s "teen comedies" and even more specifically, the wonderful John Hughes numbers. And yes, for all who wondered...the film does feature nudity, but nowhere near as much as EUROTRIP or as gratuitous. The gorgeous lead, however, Elisha Cuthbert, doesn't go nudie, but does convey the perfect sweet, stunning, smart and sexy prize in the film, a la Kelly LeBrock in WEIRD SCIENCE.
Quote from: Bankythats why i restated. It can still be a teen sex comedy without nudity.
Notice:
Quote from: Joblobut it took me right back to the 80s "teen comedies" and even more specifically, the wonderful John Hughes numbers.
He didn't use "sex" in his description of the John Hughes comparison. That's why I stated that Hughes movies are not "teen sex comedies" like "Porky's".
ugh... john hughes movies... that's what people watch when they're trying to be retro and cool. i hate those movies. except for ferris bueller's day off. that's just plain funny no matter who you are.
I'm in LA right now at some kinda resort for people trying to break in (oakwood something?) and I guess the kid from the movie stays here too.
haha. oakwood. that place is for divorcees who've moved out of their houses, struggling child actors, and kids who are doing the nyfa program. i was number three two summers ago. at one point, and i don't know how this happened, i was hanging out with kyle from moolah beach (survivor for teenagers) and a bunch of other actors comparing their resumes.
"well, i was in moolah beach. that was a great start for my acting career."
"i was in a kraft mac and cheese commercial. i had to eat SOOO much mac and cheese. it was crazy."
"i got a callback for a tang commercial. i hope i get it."
it was ridiculous. and that's all i have to say.
yeah I'm here visiting my friend at the Emerson film program. this place is so lame. getting checked out by old ladies at the pool is kinda fun though I guess.
hope you're off to better places doing better things right now.
Quote from: taz.haha. oakwood. that place is for divorcees who've moved out of their houses, struggling child actors, and kids who are doing the nyfa program. i was number three two summers ago. at one point, and i don't know how this happened, i was hanging out with kyle from moolah beach (survivor for teenagers) and a bunch of other actors comparing their resumes.
"well, i was in moolah beach. that was a great start for my acting career."
"i was in a kraft mac and cheese commercial. i had to eat SOOO much mac and cheese. it was crazy."
"i got a callback for a tang commercial. i hope i get it."
it was ridiculous. and that's all i have to say.
I thought this movie was pretty great...pretty much everything I hoped for...except for the lame ending...it was a very very good teen romantic comedy...very good sountrack...didn't feel that they didn't deserve to use some of those great songs...Elish Cuthbert is wholesomely sexy...very nice.
What the name of the song that's playing on the TV commercial? Thanks.
I don't know about actually seeing this movie. It looks like it'd be fun, and I like Elisha Cuthbert, but the problem with most Hollywood flicks these days is they lack even a modicum of subtlety. Seems like a lot of 'em are ripe with decent premises, but they overplay them, and it seems like this movie is guilty of that. This is probably because execs think the viewing audience is stupid, and they have to beat jokes to a pulp to get them to sink in.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaWhat the name of the song that's playing on the TV commercial? Thanks.
if its in the same commercials i've been seeing (constantly) it's The Darkness "I Believe In A Thing Called Love".
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0000AZKM0.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=d0c43aa5f32227a8c5b1d0b70718aed36926cead)
on All Movie Guide it said that she was on Are You Afraid of the Dark?
i wonder if she was the one i always thought was hot?
how does she do on 24?
"The film stars Emile Hirsch as Matthew Kidman. (Please tell me the "Kidman" is not an oblique reference to Nicole Kidman and therefore to Tom Cruise and therefore to "Risky Business," the film this one so desperately wants to resemble.)"
-Ebert
Man ebert gave it half a star which is very supprising seeing how well rt.com received it.
Quote from: Banky"The film stars Emile Hirsch as Matthew Kidman. (Please tell me the "Kidman" is not an oblique reference to Nicole Kidman and therefore to Tom Cruise and therefore to "Risky Business," the film this one so desperately wants to resemble.)"
-Ebert
Man ebert gave it half a star which is very supprising seeing how well rt.com received it.
It got 61%, which isn't too great. Ebert and Rotten Tomatoes aren't necessarily correlated. He gave "Catch That Kid" 3 stars and it got 11% on RT.
Saw this yesterday. I actually really liked it. I laughed wholesomely throughout the movie, and I personally think it's the best 'teeny-bopper' movie I've seen, though I can't really say it's a 'teeny-bopper'. Despite following some of the formulas (such as the classic 'straight-man accompanied by a few oddballs'), I thought for the most part it broke more than a few boundaries as far the genre goes. And the acting was pretty nice, too; Elisha Cuthbert was fantastic, but I probably say that mainly because she's quite hot.
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.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote 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.
Quote from: GoneSavageQuote from: MacGuffinQuote 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.
This board needs to lighten up. Saying an actress is hot is not degrading to the art of cinema.
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.
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).
Having just read all this...I think what Chest said was funny.
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.
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.
Quote from: CinebunnyQuote 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...
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...
If Chest's comment was out of place, what do you think of the strippers dancing on poles at the premiere of the movie ?
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.
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.
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: CinebunnyQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: SoNowThen-- well, I'm weak, what can I say
I think this is the key point to consider here: SoNowThen has proven on here to have very good taste in many regards and can speak eloquently about his likes and dislikes, but I don't think it's degrading for him -- or anyone else, including myself -- to admit to indulging in something less than high art, and to enjoying a base level of entertaiment that plays upon a base level of desire. I think it's safe to say that most people on this board are, in their proclamations of hotness, simply responding to hormonal urges brought about by the sight of beautiful people onscreen, and, in the case of a movie like this, acknowledging that that's what it's there for.
I find myself on a hypocritical rift sometimes, since I support intellectual stimulation with all my heart and yet cannot completely decry the sight of an attractive and/or scantily clad woman on a magazine cover or movie poster. In other words, I sympathize with both sides of this argument, and take solace in my belief that the vast majority of people here are not slaves to their loins but simply in tune, if not in complete and total control, with them.
Lastly, I think 'hot' is on the verge of simply becoming alluringly complementary slang (rather than lustily derogatory), as evidenced by the wide belief that Tina Fey is hot. In smarter circles like this one, brains have as much, if not more, to do with hotness as bosoms.
Quote from: SoNowThenI 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.
I figured you'd know that what I meant was that porn is more upfront about its agenda.
I think that when I find a particular male or female actor sexually arousing, it's easy for me to say the director is "fucking" them with his or her camera, but it's difficult to support that claim when speaking with someone who isn't aroused by same actor. Unless it's really, really obvious. Compare any of Godard's films with
Fight Club to see the difference between "relatively speaking, it seemed as though the director was fucking the actor with his camera" and "that couldn't be less of a turn-on to me, but the camera-fucking was too obvious to ignore." :)
I would refer you to Godard's reasons for showing Bardot's ass, and the way he showed it, in
Contempt. In that case, he objectified in the most subversive way he could, because he thought it was silly to be gratuitous (and really, the level of gratuitousness makes all the difference when we're talking about nudity, sex, physical appearances, and whether they're being crassly exploited or utilized in a way that's artistically "right"). In any case, I don't think he ever objectified in the one-dimensional, purely libidinous, creatively ill-advised way so much Hollywood product always has. He may have acknowledged the beauty of his lead actresses (and actors, I would add), but he didn't let that get in the way of what he was doing. He wasn't disproportionate about it in a self-indulgent way.
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: SoNowThen-- well, I'm weak, what can I say
I think this is the key point to consider here: SoNowThen has proven on here to have very good taste in many regards and can speak eloquently about his likes and dislikes, but I don't think it's degrading for him -- or anyone else, including myself -- to admit to indulging in something less than high art, and to enjoying a base level of entertaiment that plays upon a base level of desire. I think it's safe to say that most people on this board are, in their proclamations of hotness, simply responding to hormonal urges brought about by the sight of beautiful people onscreen, and, in the case of a movie like this, acknowledging that that's what it's there for.
I find myself on a hypocritical rift sometimes, since I support intellectual stimulation with all my heart and yet cannot completely decry the sight of an attractive and/or scantily clad woman on a magazine cover or movie poster. In other words, I sympathize with both sides of this argument, and take solace in my belief that the vast majority of people here are not slaves to their loins but simply in tune, if not in complete and total control, with them.
Lastly, I think 'hot' is on the verge of simply becoming alluringly complementary slang (rather than lustily derogatory), as evidenced by the wide belief that Tina Fey is hot. In smarter circles like this one, brains have as much, if not more, to do with hotness as bosoms.
For me, it's all about what's excluded (or not) in service of "the hotness." There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying you think someone onscreen is very attractive, but I think the focus on that is really disproportionate at times, especially here. It's the
excessive fixation on what we find attractive in the actors in a movie that I think leads to both flawed perceptions of a film's qualities and a level of discussion that's just not interesting for those who want to talk about the movie and the characters and the director and the script and the lighting and the editing and, if there's time or it's especially compelling, how nice it was to be able to look at someone very attractive, apart from the considerations of what the film was or how good it was or what its intentions were, etc.
All I want to add is a comment on the intention of the Godard quote, which is the most intruging bit about this little debate.
What he meant when he said "boys photographing girls" is simply that all throughout cinema, we have always seen things from a man's point of view, and oftentimes, films have made it a point to show this POV, and meditate on how a man thinks of a woman, be it her looks or something else. So many films have this undercurrent running through it that it's impossible to escape, from High Fidelity to That Obscure Object of Desire. This is primarily because so few women directors have been successful yet (and there have been very few women directors to make a compelling film, Sofia Coppola notwithstanding, and no, Kimberly Peirce wasn't one -- Boys Don't Cry was a pile of crap).
Wow, talk about your tangents.
Oh, and Tina Fey is "hot" not only because of her smarts, but because of her wit, her talent, and yeah, she's just really pretty too. That's just the icing on the cake. It's the glasses. Definitely the glasses.
Quote from: OnomatopaellaOh, and Tina Fey is "hot" not only because of her smarts, but because of her wit, her talent, and yeah, she's just really pretty too. That's just the icing on the cake. It's the glasses. Definitely the glasses.
I guess you could say she puts the "Up" in "Weekend Update."
Hmmm. I suppose I might still remember too clearly those high school circles who think anything with long legs and big breasts (or tight pecs and a fast car) is not only the epitome of hotness but the very center of the meaning of life, by comparison to which this board is a veritible haven of intellectual stimulation. Either that, or I'm not reading the right threads.
Quote from: GhostboyHmmm. I suppose I might still remember too clearly those high school circles who think anything with long legs and big breasts (or tight pecs and a fast car) is not only the epitome of hotness but the very center of the meaning of life, by comparison to which this board is a veritible haven of intellectual stimulation. Either that, or I'm not reading the right threads.
Well, I agree that this board is a haven of intellectual stimulation, but it all depends on where you look. What Mac drives at a lot is that women aren't given the respect they deserve, and it brings them down when they are commented for their looks and not their talent. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain, but still it seems to escape some people. And since this place is good for intellectual stimulation and testosteroney treats, so to speak, the two kind of clash against each other at times. This, too, is probably wholly obvious.
Point being that in criticism, you should concentrate on the performances. SoNowThen and Cecil and the like can still make all the films they like with the lewd interpretation of the Godard quote in mind, and still, that caveman-esque side of all of us will probably line up in droves to see it. The balance comes when some women directors start building up the cache to exploit "pretty boys" just as much as men have exploited women. Won't that be fun?
Well, I know I for one miss myadopteddaughter's avatar, or even Ravi's interpretation of it...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maximonline.com%2Fgirls%2Felisha_cuthbert_2%2Fgm_l1.jpg&hash=2cd074663f4a62319d37bfac63d5f06d74ed53fb)
man she is fucking smoking isnt she
Quote from: peteyeah, 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.
This is the key point to this entire discussion. During the argument, I kept wondering why it was being discussed in relation to
The Girl Next Door. Cuthbert's hotness is the entire point of the film! Its obvious Godardian never seen it or has any intention to do so, maybe true too for MacGuffin. If this film was 21 Grams and an honest performance was brought down to someone squealing over how Naomi Watt's tits were fantastic, then I'd see the justification. Everyone just realize how low ball this film is and actually criticize that. I like that James Joyce wrote some of the most intellectual fiction of the 20th century and still frequented whore houses with little remorse.
This is what I'm talking about, and Duderino, I'm sorry I have to call you out, but your comments were the easiest to find:
Quote from: About Scarlett Johansson, El Duderinohow can you look at that pic and not get a hard on? (unless you have nothing able to get hard)
Quote from: El Duderinojim carrey was great and kate winslet was at the top of her game and she was so beautiful.
Quote from: El Duderinonatalie portman's so hot
Quote from: About Kate Winslet, El Duderinototally agreed. she's so beautiful
Quote from: El Duderinosarah polley is hot
Quote from: El DuderinoQuote from: RegularKarateMeg White is a shittttttttty actress.
i believe it. she's cute though
Quote from: El Duderinoeyes wide shut was rated R and it's got some pretty "hot" scenes in there
Quote from: About Angelina Jolie's boobs, El Duderinoyou didnt really get a good look at them either
Quote from: El Duderinoyeah, google never gives you free porn.....sucks.....use yahoo
Quote from: El Duderinothough the movie doesnt look very good, i'll see it for kelly macdonald.
Quote from: El Duderinowait, is this forum comparing who's a better Clarice? because if so, i gotta go with Jodie, even though i think Julianne is sooo much hotter and a better actress.
Quote from: El Duderinoi went to a screening way back when and Nora Jane-Noone was there for a Q and A, she's so great and really hot in person.
Quote from: El Duderinoshe's a good actress. I didnt know she was married to David E. Kelly, that lucky bastard.
Quote from: El Duderinowoof, jessica biel is, may i say "bootylicious?"
Quote from: C:\BRADi said GOD DAAAAAAAAMN!
amen brother
Quote from: El DuderinoQuote from: ThrindleOne more thing, I'm not a lesbian, but Linda in that red bikini does it for me. :oops:
i remember the first time i saw that, i was doing the same exact thing as Judge Reinhold. :lol:
Quote from: El Duderinowow.....Uma is so beautiful:
Quote from: El DuderinoQuote from: MacGuffinI'm surprised you didn't mention how hot the playboy chicks were in your review.
you're totally right...i love when they rush the stage. but seriously, during the sex scenes, they're so hot. "susie q" is still in my head
I stopped after 10 pages...
Now, what I'm talking about really has nothing to do with Girl Next Door, and I would go see it, but my motives are not because I heard Cuthbert is naked in it; it's really that I'll go see anything. What I meant when I said 'that's apparently all actresses are good for nowadays' is - I see a pattern in how actresses are discussed. That's all. Nothing more. It was just a comment, just like the one in the 25th Hour thread, and the combination of those two got to me enough that what I said just happened to land in this thread; not meant to make everyone all PC. Again, not calling Chest out. Reread my quote that started this all and you'll see it's just an out loud thought. Have I made myself clear now?
wow....I.....I.....I dont know what to say. I didnt know i did that that much. but Mac, all is forgiven, it's for a good cause...i guess.
mac, you are the man....!!!
there really needs to be a search engine on the web w/ your name....
btw- el duderino......:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fspotlight%2F_photos%2F2002-05-03-keaton-s.jpg&hash=3a80d706e5f8044cf58a030bcfdd267549a9fa77)
El dudeniro post the same way and dont change your style. None of the shit you said was to offensive, not that that was the argument but come on man the whole point of a message board is to have a voice even if it is just through text.
Quote from: N the E digital O rape Nmac, you are the man....!!!
there really needs to be a search engine on the web w/ your name....
MacGoogle.
Quote from: Cinephile 9000Quote from: N the E digital O rape Nmac, you are the man....!!!
there really needs to be a search engine on the web w/ your name....
MacGoogle.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Cinephile 9000Quote from: N the E digital O rape Nmac, you are the man....!!!
there really needs to be a search engine on the web w/ your name....
MacGoogle.
Already set up with a mascot, too.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpreviews.diamondcomics.com%2Fproducts%2Fcollectibles_novelties%2Fnov_02%2Fmr_magoo_bobber.jpg&hash=d9d6353d6ce61a30b7ae31a0761e88ba5bde1ac0)
I like the deepness of this (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=2958&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) thread.
Quote from: OnomatopaellaSoNowThen and Cecil and the like can still make all the films they like with the lewd interpretation of the Godard quote in mind blah blah blah
Sorry, gotta beat a dead horse. Here are some quotes from the Godard book in relation to his quote, and the relationship between directors and actresses:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that the history of cinema is the history of a plot by shy unprepossessing and sex-obsessed men to surround themselves with heartrendingly beautiful women.... the belief that cinema would provide the beautiful girls so sadly lacking in real life".
It had sweet fuck all to do with women directors. And I think he was aiming at something a little more than pointing out a man's point of view. Like it or not, comfortable or not, he was not making a noble or bleeding heart statement. The lengths he went to in first seeing Anna Karina as a model in an advert, thinking she was hot, sending out for her, offering her a role as long as she took off her clothes, getting turned down, trying again for the next film, holding long close ups so he could look at her longer, stealing her away from her boyfriend, and finally bedding her and then marrying her straightaway go a long way into leading me to believe that he was all about this statement as a means of GETTING A DREAM GIRL. And he happened to be a genius who changed the face of cinema forever. Crazy, you can be both at once. A skirt chaser with no shame, and an artist full of integrity, that is.
Also, GT's last post was a perfect summing up.
Quote from: SoNowThenIt had sweet fuck all to do with women directors.
I never said it did. But Godard is full of shit if he thinks that's why most men want to be directors. Let him speak for himself, not for me.
And Cuthbert's hotness isn't the POINT of the film. It's a sidenote. The film lacks a point from what I've read (other than that teenage males are clumsy, horny, awkwards idiots, and young girls make mistakes, too), and really descends into this sort of negative Risky-Business-wannabe territory better left alone. But again, this is only conjecture, and though Ebert and the like are reliable here, I can only know for sure when I actually see the film.
Quote from: OnomatopaellaQuote from: SoNowThenIt had sweet fuck all to do with women directors.
I never said it did. But Godard is full of shit if he thinks that's why most men want to be directors. Let him speak for himself, not for me.
And Cuthbert's hotness isn't the POINT of the film. It's a sidenote. The film lacks a point from what I've read (other than that teenage males are clumsy, horny, awkwards idiots, and young girls make mistakes, too), and really descends into this sort of negative Risky-Business-wannabe territory better left alone. But again, this is only conjecture, and though Ebert and the like are reliable here, I can only know for sure when I actually see the film.
And when you do see it, you'll realize that it IS the point of the film.
Secondly, a page back you said "What he meant when he said", so actually you were putting words in Godard's mouth, not the other way around. That's why I took exception to what you posted.
Quote from: SoNowThenSecondly, a page back you said "What he meant when he said", so actually you were putting words in Godard's mouth, not the other way around. That's why I took exception to what you posted.
Ah, but so were you. That's what interpretations are about.
The hotness of one girl simply can't be the point of a film. One picture says it all. Like that picture in Maxim. The film, if anything, uses that, as it would with any girl in that position. This argument is rather silly, though. We're not going to change each other's minds.
where do all of the Godard quotes come from? i would like more.
i think it's true about a lot of films about shy guys trying to get the unattainable girl or somewhere along those lines.......Vertigo.......even Punch-Drunk Love basically has a loner guy who gives no reason for a beautiful woman to literally stalk him and love him. in these cases and Godard, for the most part, the object of affection is generally dressed and/or presented with a more respectable appearance than The Girl Next Door i suppose.....i don't know.........did Kubrick really have any of these types of films though?
Quote from: bigideasdid Kubrick really have any of these types of films though?
Lolita, obviously. And one could argue Eyes Wide Shut, with Bill going after the hooker and other sexual conquests in a fit of jealousy. But it's not really the same sunny thing.
godard can eat my nut.
this was prolly not the best thread to bring it up, but the problem as i see it with the hotness is that a lot of ppl seriously believe that is enuff to fill up a whole reivew. ppl already write shit reviews as it is, without the addition of horny-teenager drooling, and what's worse is that it never ends.. he just did it in the Terminal thread where u can't even see zeta-jones' face.
i've done it myself but i try to counter it by writing actual reviews that discuss a film without resorting to listing categories of good and bad.. refer to my review of The War Zone. banky is right tho, it's nothing offensive, mac was only voicing his opinion as i am now, to hopefully discourage immaturity.. and at least to encourage better reviews.
Quote from: Onomatopaella
The hotness of one girl simply can't be the point of a film.
I disagree. There can be a film about a girl who everyone thinks is beautiful, and the men become idiots because of it, and the women become annoyed and jealous.
Okay, let me rephrase. The hotness of one girl simply can't be the point of a GOOD film. Hence why There's Something About Mary was so awful and this may be, too.
there's something about mary was hilarious. i think that was the point of that film. (cameron diaz wasnt really that hot in that film, so it could've hardly been the point.)
Just watched this, yeah, Cuthbert is hot, real hot, with that out of the way I enjoyed this movie alot more than I thought I would. It made me laugh out loud a few times so thats always a plus. Danielle and Mathews romance seemed to bud too quickly, it's obvious he is lusting after her and she makes him strip in the middle of the street to get a look at what shes going to be working with just cause he sneaked a peek (shit, she had her blinds wide open) and that was harsh. Cuthberts character kind of reaked of the "look at me, im an attention whore and am living on the edge" cliche when she coaxes Mathew to go jump in that swimming pool, and keeps asking him whats the craziest thing hes done in every chapter of the dvd since she knows shes showing him a good time, it's almost as if she needed to figuratively have her ego stroked, but would sit on her hands when he needed the same thing, only literally. I was hoping that the cool kids would get it bad, but it never happened. That was my main beef with the flick is the cool kids were assholes and never got any bad trouble, so I definetely wanted some closure in that department. The sappy romance parts were pretty good and didn't make me cringe like they normally do in movies like this, so that was good. It was a soft R as oppose to a hard R, they could have gotten away with alot more, they were on the right track but it seems like the filmmakers restrained themselves too often and were trying to draw a line between the porno industry crowd and the awkward phase teen crowd. It never gave any reason why she went into the porno business so she could have some serious mental issues or was most likely a victim of sexual abuse and will have some deep dark secrets come out sometime. She never seemed to have any money either cause Mathew was always paying for crap whenever they went out (I think I even caught Mathew reluctanly tipping the limo driver when he picked them up for the prom) which is a punk move on her part cause shes a career oriented woman and hes a high school kid, that could definetely cause problems down the line. I don't see the two lasting in real life, only in movie life, cause Mathew is going to Georgetown and would eventually want a prenup and who knows what Danielle is doing, shes the same age as Mathew but she probably started making skin flicks underage so sooner or later shes going to feel she missed out on so much and probably want to pull a Jerri Blank and go back to high school, who knows, maybe for the sequel.