Movies Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 725
  • Views: 19K
  • 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.
 
#7 of 10: "Hamnet". Grade: B+

During my sophomore year in college, I tried out for a play. That play was "Hamlet." I got cast as the Ghost of Hamlet's father. The guy who was cast as Hamlet came to school as a football player but decided to get involved with theater. He was a big, imposing guy and possibly one of the best live actors I've ever seen. After his sophomore year, he left school and headed to New York. He got cast quickly into a soap opera and became a regular within a year. He also did regional theater and appeared in bit parts in a couple of movies. Long story short - he made a career and a good life out of acting, and he was damn good at his craft.

I'd like to think that I was a decent actor myself. I held my own with Hamlet and earned the respect of not only the actor playing the part but also the guy playing Polonius. He, too, left school early for New York and became a Tony-winning director and choreographer. I remember my scriptwriting professor, who had penned a couple of off-Broadway plays and a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, asking why I intended to go to law school instead of going to New York. My answer - "I like to eat, and acting's pretty risky." His response tortured me with wistful regret ever after - "That's too bad because you're a really good actor and I think you could succeed."

It was with this early encounter with Shakespeare's great tragedy that I sat down to watch the Oscar-nominated "Hamnet." The movie's first hour was less exposition than a sensory experience into a plethora of beautiful and sometimes prophetic scenes. Jessie Buckley, who should and likely will win the Oscar for Best Actress, carried this movie as a suspected witch/earth mother who marries William Shakespeare. Agnes holds down the household while Will advances his career in London. The other stellar performance is by young Jacobi Jupe, who plays the title character. This kid was phenomenal and probably deserved a supporting actor nomination.

The movie comes to life when Hamnet dies. His mother grieves openly and angrily. His father continues to lose himself in his work. Only when Agnes travels to London to see her husband's new play does she come to understand his grief and reconcile the loss. Even without a word spoken between the couple, the scene proved powerful and moving. Buckley's performance dominated, but the Ghost of Hamlet's father (played by Paul Mescal's Will) held up his own play to share his love, grief, and understanding with his wife. Hearing the words again I had spoken so many years ago, at a pivotal point in an Oscar Best Picture nominee, was surreal. I traveled back to those moments when I was "holding my own" on stage with a fabulous actor. I know how Mescal must have felt - "Pity me not, but lend thy serious hearing to what I shall unfold." And to a play from long ago and the best scene from a movie that I liked, I contemplate the line, "Adieu, adieu, adieu ... remember me."

​

 
I watched Marty Supreme last night and really enjoyed it. My wife didn’t enjoy it as much, as she was very irritated by the main character. She stopped watching about an hour in. It’s funny because the same thing happened when she watched another Josh Safdie film, Uncut Gems. She was extremely irritated by the main character and stopped watching the movie less than halfway through.

Fun fact about the main character: He was based on real life table tennis star Marty Reisman. When Reisman played doubles, one of his partners with whom he was very successful was Douglas Cartman, a North Carolina native who was also a UNC grad. In the movie, it shows the main character touring with the Globetretters as he performs halftime comedy table tennis routines. In real life, it was Reisman and Cartman doing those routines together as they toured with the Globetrotters.
 
Watched "The RIP" the other day. Decent movie. Sort of a who done it. They did a decent job in misleading until it was obvious, the ending was a little over the top. 5 of 10.

Watched Atlas this morning. Really bad movie.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
#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.
Click to expand...

I thought the pitch for Sinners was basically Django Unchained meets From Dusk Til Dawn.
 
breepf said:
I thought the pitch for Sinners was basically Django Unchained meets From Dusk Til Dawn.
Click to expand...
When I posted about it months ago I mentioned Dusk and also Crossroads.

I’m biased against over the top gory vampire crap; but that wasn’t its only problem, just its most blatant one.

It was a jumbled mess, had no focus. Coogler got greedy with how many movies to cram into one and didn’t pull it off.

But I can see how it was so popular — because it’s a spectacle and nice to look at, and touches on some important themes. So it has the veneer of a good movie, and that’s more than enough for most people.
 
duluoz said:
When I posted about it months ago I mentioned Dusk and also Crossroads.

I’m biased against over the top gory vampire crap; but that wasn’t its only problem, just its most blatant one.

It was a jumbled mess, had no focus. Coogler got greedy with how many movies to cram into one and didn’t pull it off.

But I can see how it was so popular — because it’s a spectacle and nice to look at, and touches on some important themes. So it has the veneer of a good movie, and that’s more than enough for most people.
Click to expand...
After Black Panther (another Coogler movie) got a bunch of hype, I watched it. I thought that was a total jumbled mess. I thought it was horrible. Virtually unwatchable. After watching it, I was shocked at the positive hype it got.
 
Icky Mettle said:
After Black Panther (another Coogler movie) got a bunch of hype, I watched it. I thought that was a total jumbled mess. I thought it was horrible. Virtually unwatchable. After watching it, I was shocked at the positive hype it got.
Click to expand...
I didn’t like that at all either. But I’m not a comic books popcorn movie guy in the least, so I wasn’t the audience for that one. I’ve seen maybe 3-4 of any of the marvel or DC movies in the past couple decades, never seen a Mission Impossible or John Wick or any of those. Just not my thing.

Fruitvale Station was the one I thought was excellent, and I wish Coogler would get back to making more things like that. But once guys get massive budgets to play with, it’s tough for them to go back.
 
duluoz said:
I didn’t like that at all either. But I’m not a comic books popcorn movie guy in the least, so I wasn’t the audience for that one. I’ve seen maybe 3-4 of any of the marvel or DC movies in the past couple decades, never seen a Mission Impossible or John Wick or any of those. Just not my thing.

Fruitvale Station was the one I thought was excellent, and I wish Coogler would get back to making more things like that. But once guys get massive budgets to play with, it’s tough for them to go back.
Click to expand...
Agreed on Fruitvale Station. I too am not a comic book movie guy. Generally have no interest in watching them. I didn’t necessarily always feel that way, but once we got inundated with them and they really leaned into sensory overload, I didn’t care for them.
 
I recently watched:

OBAA: B-. I thought it played on too many tropes while concurrently being too self serious. Generally entertaining as it was well acted for what it was but the writing did not do it for me. I felt like OBAA exists in a similar universe as Eddington and I thought Eddington was much better. I recognize I am an outlier.

Sinners: Loved it. I experienced the themes as coherent and layered. Because I knew the vampires would arrive the sudden tonal change did not throw me off. I thought the performances were mostly excellent with Jordan being generally good. Both musical numbers will be taught in film schools for decades. Or so my layperson opinion.

The Substance: Get the hell out of here with that crap. I felt like the movie treated the audience with disdain. That is an effective choice in some circumstances but I felt like the director was doing some real try hard nonsense and completely crashed the plane on landing.

Manhunter: Yep the 40 year old Michael Mann film. Curious how the 80s detective noir movie aesthetic completely removes me from the experience. The acting feels so stilted. Like everyone is performing in a theater.
 
pspsps said:
I recently watched:

OBAA: B-. I thought it played on too many tropes while concurrently being too self serious. Generally entertaining as it was well acted for what it was but the writing did not do it for me. I felt like OBAA exists in a similar universe as Eddington and I thought Eddington was much better. I recognize I am an outlier.

Sinners: Loved it. I experienced the themes as coherent and layered. Because I knew the vampires would arrive the sudden tonal change did not throw me off. I thought the performances were mostly excellent with Jordan being generally good. Both musical numbers will be taught in film schools for decades. Or so my layperson opinion.

The Substance: Get the hell out of here with that crap. I felt like the movie treated the audience with disdain. That is an effective choice in some circumstances but I felt like the director was doing some real try hard nonsense and completely crashed the plane on landing.

Manhunter: Yep the 40 year old Michael Mann film. Curious how the 80s detective noir movie aesthetic completely removes me from the experience. The acting feels so stilted. Like everyone is performing in a theater.
Click to expand...
First time I saw Manhunter was in the Student Union at Carolina. The shootout scene with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida blasting in a movie theater setting was so surreal.

Just watched the Coen brothers remake of True Grit. Highly recommend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top