The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Tyson

Tools    





I'm going to put a new poll up sometime this weekend for those that are interested. I gotta say though that its a little discouraging to see several votes for a movie and not even be able to get that many folks to do a little review or join in on the discussion. Not to be a d*ck but there's been several times one of these has won that I've had very little interest in seeing it and yet I made the time to do so anyway. And then tried to weigh in as best I could for better or worse.

Question: Should we continue this? Or does this thing need a hiatus of some kind?

Any input would be appreciated, thanks.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
It doesn't need a hiatus, but maybe instead of only listing new movies in the poll, maybe we could have some older ones too. Or maybe alternate between a new movie poll and a "classic" movie poll for the Movie Club.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I'll second that. And I'll second the idea that mixing things up in general is worth giving a go. You guys do a great job with this, and I even send out PMs of shaaaaaaame to people who vote but don't participate. This is quite effective at making people feel guilty, but less effective at getting them to participate. Go figure.

Re: Mark's suggestion. I think if the newer films are things people are likely to want to talk about anyway, and the older films are something people can check off one of the Lists, they could both receive a boost in interest.



The People's Republic of Clogher
The only problem we had with older films in the past was people actually being able to get hold of them but so few people seem to take part these days that the usual few will get into the spirit of things anyway so the point is probably moot now.

I'd long thought about doing some themed polls (say, Westerns, Sci-Fi, 1960s Miserablist English kitchen sink drama etc) but ended up thinking that people were getting as sick of me doing these clubs as I was getting demoralised by the lack of response.

We're getting into more of a 'Movie' time of year so maybe there's hope for the traditional style. One more time, then put the old girl out of her misery.
__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan



I know I'm new here but what about doing a new cinema release? I know it can be expensive but that means everyone should be able to get the film with ease. Another option would be 6 -12 month old dvds I do not know what the locale is of most posters but round in the UK you can pick up top releases 6 months later to own for about £3-£6 with ease. I bought In Bruges and Burn After Reading for £3 (same cost of rental) each recently. That means almost everyone could get a hold of the film with minimal cost.



The People's Republic of Clogher
I think they're still showing Kramer Vs Kramer at my local fleapit.

Bargain bin DVDs could well be an option but I wonder if the whole format needs a rethink? We've tried a different person picking one film each time and that turned into a 'here's how much I love this movie' thread - and one in which I played along with wholeheartedly so I'm not criticising too much.



The People's Republic of Clogher
Off the top of my head? 10 or 15 spring to mind, but that's probably got something to do with my love of the novels on which they were based. Think Alan Sillitoe and that crowd.

On a cinematic level I'll just say Ken Loach's Poor Cow and leave it at that.

Yes, I know the answer was more serious than the question but I can't get enough of the old kitchen sink. Keep the red flag flying, and all that.



The People's Republic of Clogher
If you've seen Soderbergh's The Limey (and if not, why not? ) you'll know what to expect - The footage of the young Stamp in the film is lifted directly from Poor Cow.



I agree and, as you say, admitting to rape is a whole new ballgame.


I agree with this as well.

I should have explained it better when I said that I thought 50% of his schtick was showbusiness because I believe that 80%+ of other fighters' pre-fight publicity is purely to put bums (yep the word has a different meaning over here but I think it works both ways) on seats. It always makes me chuckle when I've followed a boxer from his early days and they suddenly turn into a trash-talking corner boy when faced with their first PPV fight.

I suppose it's the price we must pay when sporting contests become 'media events'.


Yep, a few of his contemporaries would have been nice. Berbick would have been interesting but he's no longer with us, as would Frank Bruno (no stranger to mental troubles himself sadly) who was generally considered the first pro to rock Tyson with a punch, although all that succeeded in doing was to make Iron Mike really mad.

I think frustration - primal, Biblical frustration, played a big part in Tyson's mid-fight snack. If a fighter had led with his head a few years previously against the man he would have been met with a flurry of uppercuts and a trip to the local hospital but not any more. Not only was Tyson half the fighter he was but Holyfield (and Lennox Lewis) were more consistently talented then anyone he'd ever faced bar Larry Holmes, but these two guys were in their prime years. He's admitted to taking the Lewis fight purely for the money (which was where the baby-eating comments arose) and an admission like that kinda breaks my heart.

He was young enough to have regained his glory post-Buster Douglas but a combination of his aura of invincibility being shot and ... well ... what most of Tyson the movie deals with means that it was never gonna happen.

I'd have loved it if he had put at least his heart into the Lewis fight (which was embarrassingly one-sided) and left top level boxing maybe not with a win, because I think Lennox was the best Heavyweight of his generation, but with his head held high.

Someone like Bernard Hopkins is fighting at world championship level well into his 40s but I think this is because he still has the heart. Mike Tyson's heart is in pieces - One piece in Cus D'Amato's coffin; one piece in that Tokyo boxing ring; one piece in that hotel bedroom.
Bernard Hopkins is still fighting at an advanced age because he's disciplined, kept himself in great condition over the years and relies on his boxing skills rather than physical gifts.

As for Tyson, I think he's the most overrated boxer ever.



The People's Republic of Clogher
Well, considering that my post was written over 4 years ago I'd still go with the heart thing.

You don't win a world championship belt at 20, 30 or 40 unless you've got the basic talent but desire and attitude come more and more into play as age takes its inevitable toll. From what I've seen of Hopkins over the years, his onery persona and the desire to prove to the world that he's one of the greats has kept him going.

That's heart.



Tyson could have put all his heart into beating Lennox and I doubt it would have made a difference.



Let the night air cool you off
We have a boxing thread in the Intermission: Miscellaneous Chat section, Old Blood & Guts should present his case against Tyson there and hopefully it will spark some discussion.