Watching Movies Alone with crumbsroom

Tools    





Victim of The Night
So the audience is supposed to think this is a shit movie they are making?


Then what is the audience supposed to be thinking when the girl holding the boom is so inspired by what she is seeing that she wants to be in the movie. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her that she's deluded too? Are we supposed to laugh at such a decision to want to be part of such a farce? Are we meant to be on her side when she seems completely oblivious that this might be upsetting to her boyfriend who will have to film her?


What are we supposed to do with this scene, which was already stupid and weird if we accept some great filmmaking is happening here. It just becomes extra confusing, on lots of levels, if we are supposed to think their movie is complete trash.


While I dont think any movie about porn should have to live up to Rocks exacting standards in the genre (an unfairly tall order), I think his complaint has merit. Because it just seems we are supposed to accept certain things as fact just because we are told to see them that way. They say they are making something great and I think we are supposed to just assume that they are making something great. Just like we are supposed to see these characters as having depth even though, once we scratch the surface, they are never more than 2d archetypes, who are just clearly constructs of the movies needs.


Just think of the naturalism of the performances in something like your beloved f13 part 2. Those are characters that exists beyond their purpose in the film. Their banter and their body language in how they relate to eachother is unstudied and as a result authentic. Even though they were a bunch of unknowns playing the parts. Contrariwise the characters in X are given little personality fragments to spout out, but are mostly just shoehorned and manipulated into having specific functions for the film. There is nothing natural about their acting or the terribly affected dialogue they are given. Exactly the same issues I have with Wan or (most comically egregiously) Shyamalan.
What do you mean? I don't understand any way in which that scene doesn't work. She's witnessing this for the first time and it's something she's totally unacquainted with. She feels a spark and she pursues it. Does it have to be great art for that to happen? Obviously not or we wouldn't have so much not-great art. And I don't think she's oblivious, she sees the double standard he's playing with and she calls his bluff, knowing it seems to have irked him but I don't think she realizes at all that he's going to be so devastated because he was playing it so cool about the very thing she's wanting to do. The fact that he reacts the way he does is on him and frankly I kinda enjoyed watching him suffer. I think they're both off but I think he's further off.
And I guess I just don't understand where the idea that this was great art is even coming from. The movie makes it super-clear that this is some fly-by-night shit and that basically no one is a real professional, even the "stars" are the smallest of potatoes in the industry, essentially unkowns, that they are all feeding each other this delusion that they are somehow gonna magically produce Art when they have like one camera and a bunch of amateurs with inflated self-images. I mean, that was really the whole point of their story was that they were these silly, rank amateurs. And that Maxxine is just this kid who basically doesn't even know what she doesn't know, being told by her ultra-low-grade con-man boyfriend that she has "it" and that this is gonna be something real and special when it's just a bunch of amateurs doing amateur shit in a cabin on a farm they didn't even tell they were making a movie when they rented it.
I mean, that is really the whole framing of the thing, without assuming that I don't know what the movie is because I didn't realize there was any other way it could possibly be seen.



Victim of The Night
Having seen neither film, I kind of feel the very existence of Pearl is kind of a spoiler for X.
Is this going to ruin X for me when I finally get around to it?
You should see X first but the existence of Pearl doesn't spoil much of X, once you've seen X.



Between being cited multiple times in this discussion, and Tak telling people to watch porn in the Hall of Infamy, Iíve never felt so proud of my online influence.
Ethically produced. Important criteria.



Having seen neither film, I kind of feel the very existence of Pearl is kind of a spoiler for X.
Is this going to ruin X for me when I finally get around to it?
Did the poster for Texas Chain Saw Massacre ruin Texas Chain Saw Massacre because you knew Leatherface would be in it?



Maybe I just want to ensure I watch something worse than X this week, so it's now finally time for me to conquer Dario Argentos Dracula. If you never hear from me again, you'll know what killed me.



I'm trying to think of a hypothetical Dracula adaptation that would somehow be as uninvolving and emotionally inert as this one. So far I considered the idea of a Dracula with Julian Sands playing every role being a contender. But it would still be close.


But at least in that case Julian Sands' father wouldn't be directing the movie when it's time for him to show his t*ts.



I've started to think another actress in this movie kind of looks like she might be Dario Argentos daughter too. But the only reason I'm clearly discounting this possibility is that he hasn't yet asked this one to take off her top.



I'm enjoying hating this movie so much at the moment, I have to consider the possibility that I should rank this higher than X.


It's insanely boring and awful and stupid though, so I really shouldn't


At least X tried. Sort of.



Not only will this be the year I finally watch Argento's notorious pile of shit, it will also be the year I finally watch an Elvis movie.


Or so I say now



Victim of The Night
Not only will this be the year I finally watch Argento's notorious pile of shit, it will also be the year I finally watch an Elvis movie.


Or so I say now
So help me god if you give Mother Of Tears respect...



So help me god if you give Mother Of Tears respect...

I can't even imagine how Argento could do anything worse than this Dracula.


There are maybe ten insanely stupid moments that at least made me laugh, really its only saving grace. But this is an astonishingly shit movie



Iíve heard his latest, Dark Glasses, is not terrible, but havenít seen it yet myself.



What do you mean? I don't understand any way in which that scene doesn't work.

I thought it was one of the pinnacle bad scenes in the whole film. And mostly encapsulates why these characters are so unconvincing as anything other than West's props (not that all films need us to believe in the reality of the characters, but this film insists upon it)


She's witnessing this for the first time and it's something she's totally unacquainted with.
Yes, as we all know, as soon as we see something we are totally unacquainted with we decide to take off our clothes and **** in front of a camera, with absolutely no inkling of any kind of inner dialogue going on with the character. Just some kind of magic transformation happens while she is holding a boom mic over two strangers grunting and sweating in front of her. Then she announces she wants to be a porn actress. It's preposterous. It has no relationship to how people actually come to these kinds of decisions. It's just West conveniently using his characters to gin up a moment of drama between her and her boyfriend.



Does it have to be great art for that to happen?
No. But there has to be some reason beyond 'look, people ****ing'. And if, as you stated in response to Rocks' post, we as an audience we are suppose to recognize the folly of this filmmaking enterprise, this makes her decision seem something we should be laughing at her for. She was so impressed with the 'movie magic' that was happening here she wanted to join in. And yet we are left to sit their and wonder 'what the hell impressed her to such a profund level she now wants to be a part of it'. It is beyond the beyond artificial nonsense.





she sees the double standard he's playing
What double standard? Did I miss the part where he wants to **** a girl on camera and have her film it?



but I don't think she realizes at all that he's going to be so devastated because he was playing it so cool about the very thing she's wanting to do.
That character was anything but cool. And it's clear it more than irks him. Also, exactly what kind of bozo person isn't aware that this is something that is out of bounds in a relationship. The fact that she seems to think he should be totally coolio with it is, yet another mounting absurdity regarding this scene. It's one bad moment after another.



frankly I kinda enjoyed watching him suffer.
Again, maybe I missed something, but what is his crime other than being a pretentious doofus? Him making a porno would definitely would be a problem with some people in a relationship. But do we have any window into how this actually is affecting her. From what I recall, she seems to just passively be going along with helping him out. Maybe there are buried frustrations happening between them, but it's up to West to somehow articulate this to his audience and not just expect us to fill in the blanks with whatever information makes the scene not totally absurd.


And I guess I just don't understand where the idea that this was great art is even coming from.
The characters constantly talking about it. And unironically showing them ecstatic over the results as they watch back what they recorded. Maybe Wests intent is to make us believe they are deluded. But he does a horrible job of this if that was his intention.


The movie makes it super-clear that this is some fly-by-night shit and that basically no one is a real professional,
Since there are an bunch of examples in real life of non professional filmmakers doing exactly this and being successful at it, I had no reason to just assume that because this was a no budget, amateur production they were clearly headed towards folly. Especially when the director of this himself made his name as a low budget filmmaker making a film that extolled the virtues of trash 80's films that were also definitely made by non-professional weirdos with no money.


I mean, that was really the whole point of their story was that they were these silly, rank amateurs.
Maybe deluded and blinded by the notion of future stardom. But that doesn't exclude the possibility they were making something good. Which the film pushes and pushes and pushes on the audience without ever winking that we aren't supposed to be taking their efforts seriously.


And that Maxxine is just this kid who basically doesn't even know what she doesn't know, being told by her ultra-low-grade con-man boyfriend that she has "it" and that this is gonna be something real and special
I don't disagree with this. Maxine is definitely vulnerable to manipulation. And her boyfriend is a skeez. One of the elements of the film West could have done something interesting with. But instead just relied on her snorting coke to telegraph to the audience 'something is wrong here'. Maybe the prequel will add something to this, but as it stands, her character sucks.



Now obviously none of this means no one should like the movie. Even if I can (hopefully) convince you of some of the problems in this scene, one scene shouldn't sink a movie either. There were a handful of things that were done...okay...here. The first killing is shockingly brutal and upsetting. I liked the two nods to Eaten Alive. And I think the general idea of what he was trying to do could have born fruit. I've generally liked West's films, even that one about the religious cult which was ludicrously underbaked (but still fairly effective regardless of the fact that it wasn't that great).


But when I see a movie I think is enormously flawed, and likely even bad by my standards (and we haven't even gotten into what I find most annoying, this being the disgusting way the elderly are portrayed in this), and yet is getting piles of praise as some kind of revelation (or even revolutionary lol lol lol), I'm am always going to kick it right in the balls like I believe it deserves. And this one deserves a hard kick.



*Proudly holds 3D bluray of DRACULA 3D up to the sky*

*Glances back at my DVD of MOTHER OF TEARS*

I really should buy X.



Did the poster for Texas Chain Saw Massacre ruin Texas Chain Saw Massacre because you knew Leatherface would be in it?
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.



Victim of The Night
I thought it was one of the pinnacle bad scenes in the whole film. And mostly encapsulates why these characters are so unconvincing as anything other than West's props (not that all films need us to believe in the reality of the characters, but this film insists upon it)


Yes, as we all know, as soon as we see something we are totally unacquainted with we decide to take off our clothes and **** in front of a camera, with absolutely no inkling of any kind of inner dialogue going on with the character. Just some kind of magic transformation happens while she is holding a boom mic over two strangers grunting and sweating in front of her. Then she announces she wants to be a porn actress. It's preposterous. It has no relationship to how people actually come to these kinds of decisions. It's just West conveniently using his characters to gin up a moment of drama between her and her boyfriend.



No. But there has to be some reason beyond 'look, people ****ing'. And if, as you stated in response to Rocks' post, we as an audience we are suppose to recognize the folly of this filmmaking enterprise, this makes her decision seem something we should be laughing at her for. She was so impressed with the 'movie magic' that was happening here she wanted to join in. And yet we are left to sit their and wonder 'what the hell impressed her to such a profund level she now wants to be a part of it'. It is beyond the beyond artificial nonsense.





What double standard? Did I miss the part where he wants to **** a girl on camera and have her film it?



That character was anything but cool. And it's clear it more than irks him. Also, exactly what kind of bozo person isn't aware that this is something that is out of bounds in a relationship. The fact that she seems to think he should be totally coolio with it is, yet another mounting absurdity regarding this scene. It's one bad moment after another.



Again, maybe I missed something, but what is his crime other than being a pretentious doofus? Him making a porno would definitely would be a problem with some people in a relationship. But do we have any window into how this actually is affecting her. From what I recall, she seems to just passively be going along with helping him out. Maybe there are buried frustrations happening between them, but it's up to West to somehow articulate this to his audience and not just expect us to fill in the blanks with whatever information makes the scene not totally absurd.


The characters constantly talking about it. And unironically showing them ecstatic over the results as they watch back what they recorded. Maybe Wests intent is to make us believe they are deluded. But he does a horrible job of this if that was his intention.


Since there are an bunch of examples in real life of non professional filmmakers doing exactly this and being successful at it, I had no reason to just assume that because this was a no budget, amateur production they were clearly headed towards folly. Especially when the director of this himself made his name as a low budget filmmaker making a film that extolled the virtues of trash 80's films that were also definitely made by non-professional weirdos with no money.


Maybe deluded and blinded by the notion of future stardom. But that doesn't exclude the possibility they were making something good. Which the film pushes and pushes and pushes on the audience without ever winking that we aren't supposed to be taking their efforts seriously.


I don't disagree with this. Maxine is definitely vulnerable to manipulation. And her boyfriend is a skeez. One of the elements of the film West could have done something interesting with. But instead just relied on her snorting coke to telegraph to the audience 'something is wrong here'. Maybe the prequel will add something to this, but as it stands, her character sucks.



Now obviously none of this means no one should like the movie. Even if I can (hopefully) convince you of some of the problems in this scene, one scene shouldn't sink a movie either. There were a handful of things that were done...okay...here. The first killing is shockingly brutal and upsetting. I liked the two nods to Eaten Alive. And I think the general idea of what he was trying to do could have born fruit. I've generally liked West's films, even that one about the religious cult which was ludicrously underbaked (but still fairly effective regardless of the fact that it wasn't that great).


But when I see a movie I think is enormously flawed, and likely even bad by my standards (and we haven't even gotten into what I find most annoying, this being the disgusting way the elderly are portrayed in this), and yet is getting piles of praise as some kind of revelation (or even revolutionary lol lol lol), I'm am always going to kick it right in the balls like I believe it deserves. And this one deserves a hard kick.
Unfortunately, none of that convinces me (hopefully or not) of the "problems" with the scene. I don't see any of it the way you see it. I read what you said carefully and I previously stated the way I saw it, and nothing you said moved my needle on it one millimeter, it just made me feel like this is another one of those things you and I are in different worlds about. That scene in particular (and the extensions as we've talked through the movie, of where the cause and effects of that scene are) as well as, it seems, most of the rest of the film really. I found the characters very credible, which is a big part of the reason I liked the movie. I found most of them multi-dimensional, including the director who acts so superior with his girlfriend when she questions why he wants to do this porn but then has a meltdown when she gets turned on by what she sees, wants to participate, and uses essentially his own words against him. I think you're ignoring the context of the time they are in as well.
I also disagree that the elderly people were portrayed disgustingly. I take care of elderly people all the time, not just my patients but also both my mother and grandmother as they died, and I didn't see anything in this movie that was dishonest in the portrayal of the elderly (other than who they are as characters in this film). I actually was very touched by both of them
WARNING: "not for people who haven't seen the film" spoilers below
before the worm turned and I thought it was (and I know you reject this position but we will just have to differ here) that there was in fact an empowerment to it. They are taken for granted as feeble and sad and they are neither. And that mistake turns out to be deadly.

For my money, West, here, has made his best film and one of the better recent Horror films, by actually reaching back and making a very good version of the films that inspired him, probably much better than almost all of them, and transitively, a good film at the same time.
But I think it will be as obvious to you as it is to me that we will not sway each other on this topic, so I don't expect you to agree with anything I've said or change your mind about the film.

As a very slight detour, I think it's interesting that you and I are often very closely aligned (more so than some of our discussion would suggest at first blush but obvious when I think about them) on all the things we are willing to let slide in so many movies to enjoy the things they actually did well, such that when you just hate a movie like this that has obviously done a lot of things well (acting, design, cinematography, music, etc.), it really surprises me and makes it hard for me to understand where you're coming from.
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.



Victim of The Night
I can't even imagine how Argento could do anything worse than this Dracula.


There are maybe ten insanely stupid moments that at least made me laugh, really its only saving grace. But this is an astonishingly shit movie
Well, to be honest, after I saw Mother Of Tears, I didn't watch an Argento other than Suspiria for almost a decade, so I never saw his Dracula and have no idea how bad it is.