Watching Movies Alone with crumbsroom

Tools    





Victim of The Night
Viva Las Vegas is fun. That’s the only Elvis movie I’ve seen.
I grew up on Elvis movies. I also like King Creole (co-starring Morticia Addams) and Blue Hawaii (which somehow had Angela Lansbury in it?!).



Victim of The Night
I was just concerned that this is the equivalent of F13 Part 2: Mrs Voorhies Strikes Again or something. Where the existence of the sequel spoils a twist from the original, if you know what I mean. Or Star Wars Episode 3: Like Father Like Son.

It is what it is, I'm still going to watch them. I just wasn't expecting a sequel to arrive so soon so I fell behind.
I don't think it does, but I think you should learn as little more as you possibly can about either and then watch X soon before it does get spoiled for you. I knew very little about it going in and, honestly, I had no idea how it was gonna end even well over an hour into the film.



I was just concerned that this is the equivalent of F13 Part 2: Mrs Voorhies Strikes Again or something. Where the existence of the sequel spoils a twist from the original, if you know what I mean. Or Star Wars Episode 3: Like Father Like Son.

It is what it is, I'm still going to watch them. I just wasn't expecting a sequel to arrive so soon so I fell behind.
Ah. Gotcha. It’s not a twist. The trailers showed crazy old lady as the killer so I figured you knew as much.

Pearl is just the origin of crazy old lady.



Ah. Gotcha. It’s not a twist. The trailers showed crazy old lady as the killer so I figured you knew as much.

Pearl is just the origin of crazy old lady.
“Crazy”

“Old”

Look at this guy. Shaming a strong, sensual woman out of his deep seated misogyny. Just like “Crazy” “Fat” Ethel.



“Crazy”

“Old”

Look at this guy. Shaming a strong, sensual woman out of his deep seated misogyny. Just like “Crazy” “Fat” Ethel.
I docked West a point for the cowardice of not calling it Crazy Old Pearl.



When I nitpick a movie with bad acting, no cinematography, a poor script, zero budget to hide any of that, and still give it like an average grade for the things they were plucky enough and maybe had just enough artistry to get right, and you say you are just willing to forgive all those issues and I am somehow off base for looking at the negatives and then you rip a movie like this to shreds over things you see as negatives or took issue with when so much of the movie is actually done well... I just kinda don't know how to reconcile those two things.

What I'm always looking for in a film, or any piece of art, is something that lives by its own rules. That seem as if they could only come from one particular brain. That understands aiming for competency is the absolute lowest bar you could aim for. Even lower than awfulness. Even lower than failure.



I frequently bitch about film using story as a crutch. I may as well use '**** your story' as my signature at this point. And the reason is very much what this discussion is about. Because all X is giving me is conventional story telling. Yes, I'm sure you disagree that its conventional. But to me its ****ing boring as moths how conventional it is. And what happens when I feel that all I am getting from a film is storytelling (and as I've said a billion times before, the only way to impress me with story is if it legitimately some kind of revolutionary level of brilliance), I am forced to look at the craft and the personality of that film. It forces a situation where I now have to start to consider acting, and story mechanics, and cinematography, and editing, and demand that these at least be interesting. Or at least be brilliant. And, no, X does rise to this level either. I find nothing interesting about its editing, its acting, the way it looks, the way the story moves. And I don't think it has a terribly winning personality. And so the reason I am being critical of these things, which I'm usually quite happy to overlook, is because it's all it is giving me. If I want to talk about X, that is all there is to talk about.


And then there are different kinds of films that I rate differently. A film that is cheap. Or is deeply flawed. Or is made by some weirdo who has his own unique notion of what a movie or a story should be. Or has his vision twisted into strange shapes because of his limited talent. These movies can be filled with stuff that doesn't work. Or is straight up crappy. Or can have bad acting. Or terrible scripts. Or awful editing. Because in those moments where they give me something unique, even if most of the surrounding film might be underwhelming, something lights up. Something suddenly matters on the screen. It creates a spark between me and it.


X offers me no sparks. It just lies dead on the screen. It's why I can be momentarily more excited about Argento's Dracula even though it is undoubtedly a worse movie. X is made by someone who knows how to put a movie together. And do things to make his audience like it. And have them leave feeling satisfied in a very specific way. An Dracula is a mostly unbearable piece of garbage. But at least it has six or seven moments that, because of their sheer audacity or stupidity or strangeness or very particular incompetence, actually got my attention. Sparks.



As for the previous conversation where we disagreed about things, it was never about you not having any right to criticize the things you don't like in a film. It was specifically about my irritation at having the obvious cheapness of a film being used as a reason a film doesn't work. Or as a negative in any way at all (yes, I understand what your specific problem was in this instance, and I do get your point about 'living up to a premises potential' even if I still ultimately disagree with the sentiment).



No other art has anyone concerned about what the budget was in producing it, and for good reason. And yet it is always levelled at film. And I think that's an enormous problem and hurdle for this particular medium to overcome. I believe Hollywood has spoiled us with expectations that movies should have a specific standard in how they look. And I just hate that whole notion right into the marrow of my bones, because it gives those with money a much easier path to a monopoly in film. And what's the result of this? It ultimately relegates all cheap looking movies to 'b movie' or 'so bad its good' or 'cult film' or 'art film' status. Makes them seem seem inaccessible or aimed above the heads of your average film goer. And they aren't.



You didn’t feel Goth’s performance rose to the occasion? It’s not nearly as impressive as what she does in Pearl, which deserves the overly optimistic Oscar buzz, but I do think she kills it in the dual role as Pearl and Maxine in a way that does stand out among performances in the slasher genre.



You didn’t feel Goth’s performance rose to the occasion? It’s not nearly as impressive as what she does in Pearl, which deserves the overly optimistic Oscar buzz, but I do think she kills it in the dual role as Pearl and Maxine in a way that does stand out among performances in the slasher genre.

She was fine. But I'd be lying if I said anything about it really jumped out at me. But fine. Definitely fine which is also all I have to say about any of the stuff in it that I thought was...fine.


That first kill though. That was good.



She was fine. But I'd be lying if I said anything about it really jumped out at me. But fine. Definitely fine which is also all I have to say about any of the stuff in it that I thought was...fine.


That first kill though. That was good.
I’m going to bet that if you give it the chance, you’ll like Pearl much more. It seems to address many of your issues with X and Goth absolutely kills it.

It’s amusing reading someone else’s thoughts on a West film sound like how I used to, only about one of the two (three, really) West films that I wouldn’t take to task.



I'll be honest, I found Goth a little dull as Maxxxxxxxxxine. I've liked her off kilter presence elsewhere, but here, I think those qualities are pretty much absent. Also, that one line reading drove me up a wall. But that might have been my overall annoyance with the movie talking.



Mubi is having a Maurice Pialat retrospective, and that is a guy who needs more love. I've never even heard of his Mouths Agape and that was quality.



Now let's get back to our talk about X before we can drift off topic.


It can still eat shit.



I’m going to bet that if you give it the chance, you’ll like Pearl much more. It seems to address many of your issues with X and Goth absolutely kills it.

It’s amusing reading someone else’s thoughts on a West film sound like how I used to, only about one of the two (three, really) West films that I wouldn’t take to task.



I'll watch it, I'm sure. Why not? It's not like I think X was a total rat's nest. I enjoy watching movies I hate too. That's actually still better than most things.



I finally bought my first Skinny Puppy record


I'm so proud of myself.
Nice! Which one was it, by the way?



I finally bought my first Skinny Puppy record


I'm so proud of myself.
Remission? Good stuff, especially Glass Houses and Far Too Frail. I played the heck out of that album in high school.
I've though about using Skinny Puppy in the song contest, but I think it might scare some people away.



Yeah, good old Skinny Puppy…



*has no idea what Skinny Puppy is*



Aww, how cute.
They're a misleadingly-named industrial band that started in the early '80s that are famous for doing scary stuff at their live shows. I'll just say don't Google "skinny puppy live" at work.
How'd they choose that name? I have no idea.