Movies Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 707
  • Views: 18K
  • Off-Topic 
Head scratcher....

'Silence of the Lambs' star Ted Levine denounces his legendary villain role after transgender criticism​


Actor acknowledges 'unfortunate' lines in script and says film 'vilified' transgender community

Ted Levine, who played Buffalo Bill in the film Silence of the Lambs, spoke out about transphobia criticism the movie has received since its release 35 years ago.

"There are certain aspects of the movie that don’t hold up too well," Levine told The Hollywood Reporter.

The portrayal of the character Buffalo Bill, also known as Jame Gumb, has been criticized over the years by the transgender community as harmful.

www.foxnews.com

'Silence of the Lambs' star Ted Levine denounces his legendary villain role after transgender criticism

Ted Levine admits "Silence of the Lambs" Buffalo Bill character "vilified" transgender community, calling it "f---ing wrong" 35 years after film's release.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
Finally watched Marty Supreme. It was fine. I think I’m getting Safdie-fatigue. I didn’t even feel stressed out by it, which means I wasn’t very engaged.

Pretty wacky and funny to see Abel Ferrara (!) and Penn Gillette in a crazy scene together. I thought the ‘80s music was interesting and worked. Always love seeing old NYC sets. The acting was fine all around. No awards necessary.

B/B-
 
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
I found this fascinating - interesting to see what comes from it
Click to expand...
Creepy, I’m not into it. A toothpaste/tube mess where people only ask if they can and don’t ask if they should. Bad news IMO.

But it did make me wonder if the reason Ambersons had left me kinda flat when I saw it years ago was all this controversial editing of the original cut. If I was aware of that I’d forgotten it.
 
duluoz said:
Creepy, I’m not into it. A toothpaste/tube mess where people only ask if they can and don’t ask if they should. Bad news IMO.

But it did make me wonder if the reason Ambersons had left me kinda flat when I saw it years ago was all this controversial editing of the original cut. If I was aware of that I’d forgotten it.
Click to expand...

My understanding is after Citizen Kane pretty much all of Orson Welles movies got edited by the studios without his permission
 
#6 of 10: "Sinners". Grade: B-

I was reminded of "The King's Speech" while watching "Sinners". Not that the two movies have much of anything in common, but I found myself thinking there was a better movie hiding in plain sight in both. As a history major, the story of the king's brother, former King Edward VIII, is much more fascinating than King George VI's stutter. And what of "Sinners"? Why is there a vampire movie hiding in the middle of a story of race, religion, and the blues? Count me puzzled. I honestly think this movie would have been better without the supernatural intervention. Sixteen Oscar nominations, including one for Original Screenplay, beg to differ.

Might "Sinners" be this year's "The Color Purple", a movie that was nominated for a boatload of Oscars and won none? Possibly, but I doubt it. While it might sweep as a Hollywood middle finger to MAGA, I think it's more likely to be competitive in a few categories (Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Casting, Cinematography, Score, Production Design, Makeup, and Sound).

The success of this movie is surprising. That horror fans would stick with a story for over an hour to get to the carnage is as stunning as its nearly $280 million domestic gross. Equally shocking is that fans of historical depictions of racial issues would hang in there with a vampire movie. Somehow, Director Ryan Coogler made it work for both groups.

While the pace dragged in the beginning, it picked up steam when the vampires appeared on the scene. Honestly, I wasn't really impressed with Michael B. Jordan in this. The twin conceit didn't really work for me and came off as a vanity/Oscar consideration play. I guess it worked. I liked Wunmi Mosaku's supporting performance, and Buddy Guy's credits scene deserves a shout-out. It was nicely nuanced for a non-actor.

I have a feeling there are plenty out there who liked "Sinners" much more than I did. My wife is one of them. I came in with high expectations and left with a desire to see a different movie - maybe one where the evil, bloodthirsty monsters wore robes instead of glowing contacts.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
I have a feeling there are plenty out there who liked "Sinners" much more than I did.
Click to expand...
Not me. I gave it a C+.

I was with the first half, that part was an A. Despite the gimmicky twins thing. The vampire crap bored the hell out of me and made me mad they pissed away a great start.

Tried to cram way way too much into one movie. There were 3-4 movies smashed together in there and they all suffered for it. I hope it doesn’t win anything beyond the technical/production categories. So many better movies this year.
 
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
My understanding is after Citizen Kane pretty much all of Orson Welles movies got edited by the studios without his permission
Click to expand...
The way people are usually Beatles or Elvis, they’re also Kane or Casablanca. I’m a Casablanca guy, and was left pretty flat by Kane. Technically innovative, groundbreaking, etc… so I could appreciate some of it, but it felt soulless to me. Ambersons left me the same. So I never even got to Touch of Evil or anything else. Just not my guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top