Thread: Viddy's Views

Your right, viddy, this is no Aliens... This is much, much better.

Interesting review. I disagree with a lot of what you say. You state that the digital scratches on the film is gimmicky as if it's a bad thing. We must remember that this is supposed to be a shameless homage on all those crap films Tarantino saw as a youth, so of course it's a gimmick and i'm sure he'd be the first one to tell you it's a gimmick.

As for the cheerleading outfit, lol, it's just supposed to be random **** that isn't supposed to make sense. It's a random, episodic movie that prides itself on being such a thing, hence the reason it can get away with unexplained plot holes and weird character attributes and stuff.

I'm not sure what your point was about the cafe scene, either. You said you didn't like it because it didn't feel like Zoe Bell talking but Tarantino himself? Well, they are his characters and I can't speak for every writer, but don't most scripters project some of their own personalities onto their creations?

Otherwise i give you a rep for at least reviewing the film

The Blind Side (2009, John Lee Hancock)




Here we have another movie where the white saves the colored. I do admit that I appreciate the fact that during the first night the main character Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) invites the big underprivileged black kid into her house she expresses her fear about her stealing. I appreciate the film addressed this concern instead of skimming over what is on the minds of 99-percent of the viewers at the time of seeing this early scene in the movie. If we are to identify with the protagonist then we ask ourselves what prevents us from bringing our own gigantic black kid into our house. My only hope is that after seeing this film, rich white bitches across the nation will adopt their own black kid. This too was addressed somewhat in the film, when an NCAA investigator questions the motives of Tuohy. Did she adopt the football talent in order to simply get him to play for Ole Miss? In real life, possibly, but the film doesn't want you to believe it.
I wonder if people watching this film realize how racist it is? I imagine most of the people at the screenings of this film were white. Sure it's an inspirational true story about a young black man from the projects of Memphis, Michael Oher played by Quinton Aaron, comes into the care of a white family who nurtures him into a football standout. But what is the demographic of our society who can pay $10 to go watch this film in the cineplexes of the suburbs which they drove to in their expensive SUVs? Not the coloreds the Oher would have hung with in Memphis.
I find this material to be extremely offensive and racist for many reasons.
One, it shows that blacks are ultimately in need of saving and have little else to offer society than sports.
Two, it shows a positive outlook on sports, when the fact is that at colleges throughout the nation professors are making roughly $60-$100 k salary on average while coaches are signing multimillion dollar contracts.
Three, a black man's greatest gift to society is through sports.
Four, what would have the story been about if a puny black kid who's all of 5'5" with no athletic talent wants to play football, but sucks at that as much as he sucks at school.
Five, a scene where big Mike takes little white riding into the hood and says "I'll protect you," again perpetuating the age old concept that all blacks want to ram their huge anaconda penises into petite little white vaginas. Why doesn't he protect her at the shopping mall?
I could go on and on.
Skip this trite and go watch Hustle and Flow, that shows the second and only other good thing blacks can give American society: rap. Note the sarcasm. But in all seriousness at least Hustle and Flow shows an interesting side of black culture in Memphis. Not to mention the brilliant ending. I wonder if Dee Jay would have hung with Big Mike!

Grade: D

NOTE: Toward the end of the film there's a horrible line where Sandra Bullock says something along the lines of, "If you get a girl pregnant, I'll cut your penis off." I wonder, if she made good on this threat how would he pee? Why not just castrate him? Also she said "pregnant" not "have sex with." I wonder how rich matriarch Tuohy would have felt if Oher fell for her daughter while living at home and snuck up to her bedroom and had sex with her. Could have he fell in love with his step-sister... weird. Just random thoughts. I feel this would have been a much better movie. But alas, we get the Disney stuff, and real life concerns and emotions go by the wayside.

First off, you answered my question, and I'm glad you're slowly revealing yourself...

Second off, don't you want responses?

I'm not fishing. I'm trying to relate to you. It's just very difficult. I'm glad I made you give me minus rep though. I can't for the life of me think why you did that (except for maybe guilt). I'm quite sure I've plus repped you far more than you have me, but I understand that sometimes things get rough. Go ahead and twist this post now.

Well I'm not always big on gimmicks. That's a personal preference I reckon.

Also the cheerleading outfit seemed too much. Like QT was going for some kind of cheerleading outfit fetish. Not saying it's overly bad, it was just something else that didn't work for me.

And Tarantino's films always have shallow characters, because he's not very good at creating them by going beyond himself.

It's one of my main problems with Pulp Fiction. Jules and Vincent are supossedly great hitmen, but what hitmen stand outside of the door of a man they are to kill, talking for hours about feet?

Again these are not good characters, but rather variations of QT's own funky persona. I doubt the real Zoe Bell was inspired by Vanishing Point, but by her sense of daredevilishness. QT on the other hand was inspired by Vanishing Point.

I don't think Quentin Tarantino can ever truely write a great film, because he cannot transcend himself for his script.

I know many people praise the man to no end about what a great writer he is. How many of them have actually sat down to take the time to read a script of his? Not a whole lot I imagine.

One of my favorite films is Natural Born Killers. I've actually read the QT script, which is pretty bland. Oliver Stone fixed it up and rewrote it into a great film. Tarantino basically disowned it. Again I don't think he can write a character who is not himself.


Just one of my major gripes against his writing and dialogue style.


anywho. That's that.

Give it a shot. Even if you're not a fan of wrestling or Mickey Rourke, it might give you some insights into the "sport" which is seen as child's play and fake. Yeah pro wrestling is scripted, but the men do take a toll on their bodies. I think the film shows that well.

I used to watch WWF from 1999-2002 but it became to self-promotional and gimicky for my tastes. Still I respect the athletes who put their bodys (sometimes steroid injected) on the line for entertainment. Even if it is "low culture" entertainment.

Give it a watch.

Glen, or Glenda (1953, Edward Wood Jr.)



Why does Edward Wood Jr. not go down in history books, alongside his hero Orson Welles, as the greatest director of all time? Maybe that's going to far. This movie is not necessarily good, but it's not really "so bad, that it's good." There is a lot to be admired here. Glen or Glenda is semi-autobiographical of Ed Wood in dealing with transvestites and the conflict a man, Glen, has in revealing his closet habit of dressing in women's clothing before or after the wedding day. Aside from that there is very little along the lines of a coherent story. At its core, Glen or Glenda is a propaganda film that pulls no punches in attacking the closed minded status quo that believes only women should be allowed to wear silk underwear.
If I could summarize this film with one word it would be, incoherent. There are a lot of good ideas floating around here, and I applaud the film's ability to tackle a subject that isn't really discussed "intelligently." Even today cross dressing remains slightly taboo, and I can only imagine it being so ten-fold 50 years ago. Bela Lugosi is the storyteller of the film and then there is a psychologist within the frame story who tells another story. Within this story there's even a surreal dream in which devils and rape is seen. Thinking about it like this, Glen or Glenda has a babuskha doll like structure. Again this is all very cool and surprisingly captivating, but not all of it fits the film's thesis and purpose. A lot of the stock footage works, but the viewer must ask why is this relevant? Also does Lugosi serve any purpose to this at all? Certainly his "star power" only functions to draw in a film more people to watch this amazing monstrosity. I do admire this film and was surprised to find it not nearly as bad as what its reputations paints. Now that I've seen this, I can appreciate Tim Burton's Ed Wood more.

Grade: C+

I don't think you can call it "racist" because this is more or less how it actually happened. The man's gift really was through sports. But then again, some of your "points" seem tongue-in-cheek to the point of absurdity, so I'm not sure if I'm wasting my time saying this.

Anyway, I'm sure it's quite schmaltzy, but if most of it's true, I'm not sure that we can hold that against it.

Bukowski: Born into This (2003, John Dullaghan)



This documentary isn't necessarily special because of any filmmaking expertise, but it is special because it offers a great deal of footage of Bukowski himself over the years. It is very informative and anyone who is minorly interested in the Los Angeles poet or tragic artists in general, should give this film a watch. The ammount of collected footage shown and edited into this documentary is impressive. It is great to sit back and enjoy Bukowski reading his poetry, talking about losing his virginity to a 300 pound whore at age 25, and getting in bitter fights with his wife Linda.
Not everyone will like Bukowski as a person or poet. He seems crude, he seems vulgar. He has a face of a ghoul, very weather worn and craggedy. His nose is too big, his eyes are beady, huge eyebrows, receding hair line, long in the back, unkempt beard, pott belly, hulking mannerisms. Uncooth, disgusting. Maybe that's why his poetry rings true. We couldn't believe these words coming from someone beautiful or even average. It is heartbreaking to hear Bukowski talk about his prom and bleeding acne. It horrifys us and enthralls us. The documentary is a sharp needle into the vein of his emotion and where his words came from.
Born Into This features several of his poems, including "Dinosauria, we," from which the film takes its title. Much of his poetry is very good. Largely he talks about outcasts, drunks, women, and so forth. I've read quite a bit of his work over the years and it comes from the heart, but it's not hidden in literary ellogence. It is very straightforward and anti-climatic. Bono of U2 states that he "Has no time for metaphor," and that's certainly true. The documentary also features interviews with Sean Penn, one of Bukowski's admirers. It features interviews with his wife Linda and other people close to him, including John Martin of Black Sparrow Press who helped launch Bukowski into world wide fame giving him and outlet.
There's not a lot of razzle-dazzle in the technique of this documentary, but just like it's subject it does have much substance. Many poets are pretentious. We get the sense that Bukowski wrote as a means of survival and coping. It was something he could do well and not only wanted to do, but had to do in order to live.



Grade: A

I'm glad I could answer your discreet question.


Explain "revealing myself." This implies that you know something about me that other people may not? The elipises at the end of that statement imply that you're being nice and moving on. What am I revealing mark?

And yes I want responses that discuss the films, rather than discussing me. If you go back through this thread you constantly demonstrate a classic passive agressive demenoir. It's immature, and extremely rude. If I dislike a film that you adore ala Jaws of The Professionals, and God knows why, instead of discussing the aspects mentioned you constantly committ the ad hominem fallacy.

With your last post you refer to my dislike of American Graffeti, but you do so in a subdued way that can be taken with multiple meanings. Also you bring up something that was discussed quite a long time ago. I can't figure out why. I guess it's called a grudge. You think I'm an ass, I get it.

Enough with the BS passive agressive shiznit. Again mark, be direct, please. And for ease of reading comprehension I've highlighted the key points that I would like you to be direct on.