Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





the samoan lawyer's Avatar
Unregistered User


The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Decent comedy from Hitchcock. Definately not one of his best but its pretty funny. -
+



Barbarella (1968)

Fantasy cult starring Jane Fonda. Not great and very dated. But Fonda is hot so
__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.



From my review thread:

MANNEQUIN
(directed by Michael Gottlieb, 1987)



There's been a lot of filth spewed forth concerning the 1987 film, Mannequin, and I'm gonna clean all that crap up and get it straight and get this world balanced again.

People do not understand this movie. Worse, neurotic people holler that it's sexist and offensive and homophobic -- they are the ones who REALLY don't get Mannequin, and they are the worst because they've dragged this beautiful movie through their own dirty mud tracks.

Roger Ebert wrote an absolute BRAIN DEAD review for "Mannequin" that I feel strongly proves that fat lunkhead was severely overrated as a movie reviewer and probably only did the job for free popcorn.

I've been a fan of this movie all of my life. I was probably three or four years old when I first saw it. I remember being enamored with the VHS of Mannequin when I'd see it on a shelf in a certain store. I had probably already seen the movie on television (I'm not positive) but I remember eventually getting that VHS and being very happy. Through the years, I watched it countless times. In 1991, at seven years of age, I jumped for joy when a TV spot for Mannequin: On The Move, the sequel to Mannequin, appeared on my television. The Saturday after the Friday it was released, my dad took me to the mall movie theater and we watched flamboyant, gay window dresser Hollywood Montrose do his thang again in Mannequin 2. Months later, I ordered it off pay-per-view and I set the VCR to tape it while I was in school. The cable went out during the day, ruining my attempt at recording Mannequin 2. It's a miracle I didn't have access to guns or I might have gone to school the next day and shot everybody due to my frustration and anger with what happened the day before.

Last night, I sat down and watched Mannequin again due to a big discussion of it recently in a thread here, started by the vile, confused Captain Spaulding. It's weird and spooky how this all played out because I had just had a dream about Mannequin days before. I swear I must have been predicting the future again through my dreams.

Interestingly, Mannequin also happens to be a movie that deals with mysticism and magic, the Gods, the creative force, the spirit of man. It is practically a religious movie, and watching it last night was like a religious experience.



The truth about Mannequin is that it's much more than a comedy. In fact, there's really not that many funny scenes (a big complaint from people about the film, I know) although I did find myself laughing at times -- surprisingly during moments I really didn't expect to laugh at, but I did because the moments just ... felt like "home" to me, I guess. I knew them well and enjoyed them. Some things were funnier to me just because the movie... felt kind of different to me.

Watching this movie last night, I worried I might be bored because I've seen the movie so many times before. What stunned me is how NOT bored I was. It almost felt NEW, although I knew every scene. It's really been some years since I've watched it all the way through -- I can't remember when the last time was. Not a LONG time ago, but... at least six years, maybe. I hadn't felt the urge to watch it much anymore. Partially, I think it's because even I have been sort of affected by the naysayers of Mannequin. Partially, it's because I've seen it so much that I can play it in my head anytime I wish to see that movie again, like how you can recite a song you know so well. Partially it's because I've wanted to explore new movies and didn't feel a need to return to Mannequin.

BUT NOW -- I have returned to Mannequin. I'm back there and GUESS WHAT?!

There's gold there.



Mannequin begins in Ancient Egypt. A young woman, Ema "Emmy" Heshire (Kim Cattrall) is hiding in a pyramid amongst some mummies, trying to avoid her mother. Her mother comes in and finds her. Emmy's mother wants to take Emmy and marry her away to some Egyptian guy who sells camel dung. Emmy doesn't love this guy or even really know him -- but it's Ancient Egypt and women are treated like cattle. They are given to men to serve as wives and they have no say in the matter. Emmy prays to the Gods to help her get out of this situation because she wants to be more independent and live her own life. She wants to basically live like a man -- she wants to INVENT THINGS. She wants to FLY. She has grand ambitions for her life, but unfortunately, her mother and the men of Ancient Egypt want to give Emmy only bondage and enslavement to other men.

After she prays to the Gods, the Gods LISTEN TO EMMY. And suddenly -- Emmy disappears from Ancient Egypt! Through an animated opening credits sequence (and later explained by Emmy in the movie), the Gods grant Emmy the power to live this life she wants. She ends up being a time traveler like Dr. Who or something, and she visits different time periods and she takes part in all sorts of adventures. She meets a lot of famous people, like Christopher Columbus and Michelangelo. Mannequin deals with Emmy's stop in 1980's Philadelphia, where she decides to meet Jonathan Switcher (Andrew McCarthy), a gifted artist leading a miserable life.

Now, really -- how does this sound sexist? How does a movie about a woman wanting independence and escaping male slavery sound sexist?

You know why people say Mannequin is sexist? I think I know -- nobody likes the fact that she's a wooden mannequin. People see a woman being portrayed as a wooden mannequin, being carried around and set up in window displays, and they idiotically think it's sexist. They pay NO ATTENTION to the other details of the movie. They make up bogus beliefs that they see fit for their own gross negligence.



Now, a moment ago, I said Mannequin isn't really that much of a comedy. If you're expecting non-stop laughs, forget it. If you find yourself laughing non-stop, fine. The thing is -- you wanna know what Mannequin is? IT'S A BIG GAY MOVIE. That's what it is. And that's probably a big reason, too, for why it's so devalued. There's something frightening about Mannequin to people. But look at this:

The movie's lead character is a very sensitive, soft man, played by Andrew McCarthy. His character, Jonathan Switcher, is like a gay man. The character isn't gay, but you could easily believe a person like him would be. When we meet Jonathan, he is getting fired from all kinds of jobs. The reason he gets fired is because he's so into art that he can't do complete assignments correctly. He doesn't do a job like a man -- GET R DUN! He takes his time. He works slow, like an artist, perfecting and perfecting and perfecting. Because of this, he pisses off the more macho bosses he always has, who want a job done fast. The first job we see him have is at a mannequin factory, where he builds the mannequin which will become Emmy. He feels it is his greatest work of art for some reason -- but he gets fired from the job because he took a long time making her. Later, drenched in the rain on his motorcycle, after being dejected by his girlfriend, Jonathan sees the mannequin in a window display. He runs up in the rain and talks to it, lovingly. Then he gets back on his motorcycle and rides off, telling the mannequin that he will see it again the next day. He's an artist IN LOVE WITH HIS WORK.

The next day, he goes back to the window display early in the morning to see his mannequin again. Estelle Getty, the boss of the store, arrives (after hitting a guy with a cab door -- another sign of this movie not being sexist since there's NON-STOP female power going on) and she strikes up a conversation with Jonathan. Stupid, careless construction men drop a heavy sign they're putting up in front of the building and it almost kills Estelle Getty (and Estelle Getty, by the way -- another sign of this movie's incredible gay friendliness -- since she's a Golden Girl and this movie actually feels very Golden Girls like) -- anyway, Estelle Getty is almost killed, but Jonathan saves her. Her pushes her out of the way and because of this, she gives him a job in the store.

He meets the turd of a vice president, Mr. Richards (James Spader), who puts him in charge of the women's lingerie inventory. But Jonathan is compelled to seek out his mannequin, finding it one of the window displays. While speaking fondly to it, he is caught by Hollywood Montrose (Meshach Taylor), a flamboyant gay window dresser who is filled with energy and style and pizzazz. And then later... Jonathan's mannequin comes to life. It is Emmy. She had decided to visit this time period and meet Jonathan. How, I don't know, but apparently she did.

Through Emmy, Jonathan finds faith in his abilities as an artist. He starts creating beautiful window displays with mannequins, which attract people to the store, which is just what the store needs because it's a failing business. Another department store, Illustra, which is nearby, and where Jonathan's bitchy former girlfriend works, wants to buy Jonathan's store, called Prince & Co., for 1/10th of the store's worth. But Jonathan appears like a magical saint and his window displays save the store and Estelle Getty's character couldn't be more thrilled. Eventually Mr. Richards is even fired and Jonathan becomes the vice president. But the evil people of Illustra want Jonathan for themselves, and when they discover that he's spending his nights talking and fooling around with a MANNEQUIN (Emmy turns back into a mannequin around other people -- only Jonathan can see her) -- all Illustra needs is some embarrassing photographic evidence of Jonathan with this mannequin to get him in their hands. IF that will work....



Mannequin.

There's SO MUCH MORE I could say, but I'm getting tired of writing this.

Sexist and offensive? Not at all. I haven't explained all the reasons, but I can explain in more posts. I did some already with Captain Spaulding, but I've noticed new things after watching the movie.

Mannequin is an original. One of the greatest movies ever. Very inspiring and uplifting if you can stop living in a pig pen for awhile. I encourage everybody to see it and open their eyes and hearts to it. It's outrageous how so many people -- so many KNOW NOTHINGS -- have vilified this movie. May the Gods do away with these people and get more people to appreciate Mannequin for the real movie it is. For so long, it's been trashed and accused of all kinds of hideous charges for which it is guilty of NONE.

Get this f**king movie right now and watch it.






This movie sucked! SUCKED! Schrader might of made some great movies back in the day, but this is not one of them. And Bret "American Psycho" Easton Ellis supposedly wrote this? This script is so bad and halfhearted I think he did it because he was behind on the rent. And the acting? What acting? Lohan can't act and is barely being out acted by a guy who does porn for a living. Yeah... THAT BAD!

Okay so the movie revolves around an affair Lohan's character is having with some generic dude while she is dating a generic spoiled brat trust fund douche played by porn star James Deen. For some damn reason generic dude and the porn star are both obsessed with Lohan's character. Why? I have no idea. She is bland and uninteresting, and whose defining characteristic is she looks good in yoga pants. Generic dude is in love with her. Why? I have no idea, bad taste I guess. Douche is obsessed with her and is furious she is cheating on him. Why? I have even less of a clue. Especially when he invites other men, women, and couples to bed with him and Lohan. HE HAS ZERO REASONS TO BE JEALOUS! This is not Jake Lamotta who was a rage filled sexually jealous animal who was his own unique character. This is a dime a dozen rich trust fund baby played by a far far inferior actor to De Niro with a very poorly written character.

To top it off, having very few sympathetic or even likable characters, and more then a few needless subplots and there is a reason this movie had the reputation it did. The few shots that looked like they were taken from Taxi Driver were nice, but only reminded me I could be watching a FAR superior movie from a time when Paul Schrader was involved with great movies. It seems like this movie was made just to get Lohan topless in the flick. But having read up about the movie has me remember that whenever Lohan was nude in front of the camera, Schrader was nude BEHIND the camera. Kinda kills it for me. Plus, Lohan is not that attractive. Pam Grier or Rosario Dawson she is not. Half the movie I was screaming "why is all this being done in pursuit OF LINDSEY LOHAN?!?!?!?!?" I mean really?

If this was anymore incompetently written and acted we would be entering The Room territory. At least the camera work is good. Save yourself 99 minutes and pass on this movie.




Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Just looking at the poster there and the credits. Does that say this film stars James Deen?

EDIT - Just checked on imdb and James Deen does indeed exist and what a prolific actor he is. He has starred in over 1000 films, though I don't think I've heard of any of them - Prime MILF, Squirt Gasms 2!, Screaming AssGasms, Game of Bones: Winter is Cumming..................

Ah. I'm a little slow on the uptake but I think I just got it.



MovieForums.com analogy time:

MANNEQUIN is to SexyCelebrity as YOUNG GUNS is to Rodent



Eden Lake by James Watkins



One of the most disturbing movie i've ever seen. OMG ... it's gore as f*ck but it's pretty entertaining and the casting is pretty good . I recommand it to everyone who loves this kind of movie

8/10
__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif



Thanks for taking one for the team Gunslinger. My wife wants to see it, and it's on cable, but I haven't told her. It will continue to be a secret.



Thanks for taking one for the team Gunslinger. My wife wants to see it, and it's on cable, but I haven't told her. It will continue to be a secret.
Sometimes the wife does not need to know.




I am working on a long review over all of the Full Moon Pictures movie now, but I forgot to tell all of you that I watched this. It's a spin-off that happened either after Subspecies 2 or 3, I can't remember, but I have to say, I think it's a massive improvement over the first two. Full Moon's movies usually don't have much quality to them. I watch them for a reason that I have yet to uncover, but this one wasn't too bad. I actually kind-of liked it. Probably the best film that I've seen from Full Moon so far.



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?



(REWATCH) The Shootist
The Duke's Swan Song.





(REWATCH) Wait Until Dark (1967)
Alan Arkin stands out from a very solid cast





A Company Man (Korean)
The premise is well worn, the business is killing and their very best has grown weary and wants out and they won't let him; BUT, like a familiar tune played with elegance, beauty and ingenuity, you thoroughly enjoy the song on a whole different level and this my experience with this movie.





Arsene Lupine (1932)
A Parisian burglar and the policeman that chases him are done brilliantly by John and Lionel Barrymore





Epic
Capt Spaulding described this perfectly when he expressed it as a "safe", color-by-numbers fun for the family and I agree. Enjoyable but it followed all the "usual" buttons



Looking for Mr. Goodbar (1977)
*

This is a tough one to rate because I'm a big fan of movies like this. I love the era, style, and music, and this movie reeks of the 70's. Diane Keaton is very good as a promiscuous young woman cruising the bars for one night stands. A young Richard Gere is well cast as one of her conquests. I just felt that not quite enough happened in this 2 hour and 10 minute movie. The fact that she's a first grade teacher is a very nice touch, but do we really need that many scenes of her in the classroom? We also have the necessary interaction with her family, but that doesn't really lead anywhere. It sounds shallow, but I needed more of her in the bar scene; that's when the movie had a spark. I do think it was a pretty realistic movie, and that was an absolute must. Another important factor that it gets right is that it has a dark tone. I would probably say that it's a decent cautionary tale for young women. Although a disappointment, I enjoyed it because it suits my tastes very well, and it has a memorable ending. That doesn't mean I'd recommend it to someone else.



Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future


This movie sucked! SUCKED! Schrader might of made some great movies back in the day, but this is not one of them. And Bret "American Psycho" Easton Ellis supposedly wrote this? This script is so bad and halfhearted I think he did it because he was behind on the rent. And the acting? What acting? Lohan can't act and is barely being out acted by a guy who does porn for a living. Yeah... THAT BAD!

Okay so the movie revolves around an affair Lohan's character is having with some generic dude while she is dating a generic spoiled brat trust fund douche played by porn star James Deen. For some damn reason generic dude and the porn star are both obsessed with Lohan's character. Why? I have no idea. She is bland and uninteresting, and whose defining characteristic is she looks good in yoga pants. Generic dude is in love with her. Why? I have no idea, bad taste I guess. Douche is obsessed with her and is furious she is cheating on him. Why? I have even less of a clue. Especially when he invites other men, women, and couples to bed with him and Lohan. HE HAS ZERO REASONS TO BE JEALOUS! This is not Jake Lamotta who was a rage filled sexually jealous animal who was his own unique character. This is a dime a dozen rich trust fund baby played by a far far inferior actor to De Niro with a very poorly written character.

To top it off, having very few sympathetic or even likable characters, and more then a few needless subplots and there is a reason this movie had the reputation it did. The few shots that looked like they were taken from Taxi Driver were nice, but only reminded me I could be watching a FAR superior movie from a time when Paul Schrader was involved with great movies. It seems like this movie was made just to get Lohan topless in the flick. But having read up about the movie has me remember that whenever Lohan was nude in front of the camera, Schrader was nude BEHIND the camera. Kinda kills it for me. Plus, Lohan is not that attractive. Pam Grier or Rosario Dawson she is not. Half the movie I was screaming "why is all this being done in pursuit OF LINDSEY LOHAN?!?!?!?!?" I mean really?

If this was anymore incompetently written and acted we would be entering The Room territory. At least the camera work is good. Save yourself 99 minutes and pass on this movie.

One of the only defenders, Nick Pinkerton, (along with Richard Brody I believe) of the film makes some convincing points, worth the read: http://www.reverseshot.com/article/canyons
__________________
Mubi