Jump to content

Films from not that long ago that seem a bit "off" these days


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Delargey said:

The moment when the fight ends and he finds  her eyes in the crowd is brilliant. 

Yeah its one of the best moments in cinema. I'm trying to think of its equal.

All I got is

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya"

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LowCostMonkey said:

Not sure if this counts as 'not that long ago' but Short Circuit 2 for Fisher Stevens' role.

I was so surprised when I saw him just do his normal voice in I think an episode of columbo as a kid, I thought he happened to genuinely be Indian and exaggerated it or something along those lines, rather than it being completely put on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pob said:


Until recently lots of films seemed to suggest that some light stalking was the way to a woman’s heart. 


Isn’t that based on the approach that women were brought up being told to play hard to get (or even chaste) and men had to be persistent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky II is also excellent. It's after that it all goes downhill.

 

One thing I wish film makers would leave in the past: instant and consequence-free blows to the head as a way of making someone sleep for a short period of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Hierophant said:


Isn’t that based on the approach that women were brought up being told to play hard to get (or even chaste) and men had to be persistent?

Brought up by who? Victorian dad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But a film where the boy meet the girl of his dreams and they both fall instantly in love, isn't going to be very interesting or long. 

 

What you call mild stalking, is a series of trials the boy has to go though to prove how much he loves the girl and he is worthy. That's a plot line as old as the hills surely.

 

When harry met sally and then they married isn't quite so interesting. But yeah, Eggs telling what's her face that he's got a massive boner for her with a series of hand written signs is creepy, i'll give you that one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Hierophant said:


Isn’t that based on the approach that women were brought up being told to play hard to get (or even chaste) and men had to be persistent?

But in Back to the Future, Marty plays hard to get with his mum...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Hierophant said:


Yes, essentially. I am not saying that is right but it was certainly the norm when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. 

Or rather it was perpetuated by the films and TV of the time that were written by men even though feminism had been on the go for a while. It's this that I think is the points being made. 

 

Also @Chosty, you may be right that when harry met Sally would have been shorter if they just met and got married (and not as funny) but despite that being written by a woman, the whole 'men and women can't be friends because men just always want to bang' is a very dangerous message that was taken on board by a lot of people as effectively fact and is definitely an underlying part of the attitudes of your pick up artist/ MRA types.

 

It's an interesting mess that we get ourselves in as a species 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2020 at 12:11, SozzlyJoe said:

What about Liam Neeson's character 'bantering' with his son and calling him a "motherless cur"? You do wonder what sort of personal interactions Richard Curtis has if he considers that authentic dialogue.

 

That isn't the worst bit of that.  (There is a brilliant SMERSHPod on the film, which should really be called "Fuck The Help".)  Anyway, the weird bit is that Neeson and his son watch Titanic together as a bonding thing and the son reveals that he's fallen in love with a girl at school called Joanna.  Which might sound alright, but the boy is actually Neeson's stepson and his dead mother was called Joanna.  If my son announced - while he was still during the grieving process - that he had falled in love with a girl named exactly like his mum, I'd be whisking him off to a counsellor.

 

But, yeah, not the worst thing in that awful film. Martine McCutcheon repeatedly being called fat for a start.

 

My contribution is the John Belushi ladder scene in Animal House.  Spying on women getting undressed, with the implication that one of them is about to begin masturbating.  And it's still not as disturbing as a similar scene in one of the Confessions films, which has Robin Askwith looking through the window of a girls school (i.e under 16) while they are all undressing and exclaiming "You don't get many of those to the pound!").

 

Also Daniel Craig - in Spectre, when Bond fucks the widow of a man he killed just after she gets home from the funeral and having shots two men in front of her.

 

Mila Kunis and Seth Macfarlane have a very strange relationship.  She basically is there to get treated like shit in Family Guy and Ted.

 

Having watched it again very recently, Pretty Woman would be a very different film if it was made these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/01/2020 at 01:45, kerraig UK said:

The first isn't a boxing movie. It's a love story about a guy from a poor neighbourhood who wanted to be better than his destiny, and to prove to the girl in the local pet shop that he was worth a shot and that he saw more in her than she saw in herself. 

 

He tries being funny, he tries being honest, and then he tries being strong. And in doing so he proves he's willing to do whatever it takes. And in his moment of victory all he wants is to know she's there and hopes it his enough that he has finally earned her. 

 

It's a great love story. It's an almost perfect film. 

 

This is why you don't make sequels. The other Rocky's were about winning and beating bad guys and America. 

Rocky Balboa, whilst not as good as the first film is also a superb film with a similar cut to its jib. Also not a film about boxing at all, it is about grief and loss.


Not as well made as Rocky and flawed to high heaven but it is worthy and - kind of embarrased to admit it - makes me well up just remembering it.

 

 

After that film was released I said there is two ways ot watch rocky  - 1) watch 1,2,3,4 to watch a bombastic set of boxing movies OR 2) watch Rocky and Rocky Balboa and see two ends of a love story that have an inevitable end.

 

 

Shit now I have to go and watch the 2nd version again :( :D:(

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the topic - context and time is everything - always has been. Watching old films from the 40/50/60s in the 80s you used to think "ooh that's a bit dodgy" . Same now.

 

It does not necessarily change the impact of the work just changes the way you enjoy it. If the piece of work is strong despite the dodginess that is when you have a classic - so Airplane! above falls easily into that category. Similarly back in the 80s watching films from 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s - if the attitudes were dodgy it didn't stop the film being a classic. If the film was shit and propped up by that regressive stuff then it was fair game - and same goes now.

 

Oh and Bladerunner, in my top 5 films of all time, from the first time I saw it I thought Deckard was a mysoginist cunt because of that scene so that one doesn't age badly it just adds to my perception of the character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Clipper said:

As for the topic - context and time is everything - always has been. Watching old films from the 40/50/60s in the 80s you used to think "ooh that's a bit dodgy" . Same now.

 

It does not necessarily change the impact of the work just changes the way you enjoy it. If the piece of work is strong despite the dodginess that is when you have a classic - so Airplane! above falls easily into that category. Similarly back in the 80s watching films from 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s - if the attitudes were dodgy it didn't stop the film being a classic. If the film was shit and propped up by that regressive stuff then it was fair game - and same goes now.

 

Oh and Bladerunner, in my top 5 films of all time, from the first time I saw it I thought Deckard was a mysoginist cunt because of that scene so that one doesn't age badly it just adds to my perception of the character.

I think recognising it is important but yes I agree with your point, I don't think I thought any of the films or tv shows even in the 90s were problematic but that was just my white male privilege not seeing the issues, or that they even may have been reinforcing troubling stereotypes and the like. Then also seeing westerns or black and white movies and thinking "wow, they were terrible back in the day!". It's also perhaps not as overt so can be hard to recognise or can result in the 'defence' that you're seeing things that aren't there and so on. 

 

There's a key difference between recognising how something can be read through a different lens and the bizarre "you're trying to ruin my favourite movies" knee jerk response that some people have to these things being pointed out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, b00dles said:

I think recognising it is important but yes I agree with your point, I don't think I thought any of the films or tv shows even in the 90s were problematic but that was just my white male privilege not seeing the issues, or that they even may have been reinforcing troubling stereotypes and the like. Then also seeing westerns or black and white movies and thinking "wow, they were terrible back in the day!". It's also perhaps not as overt so can be hard to recognise or can result in the 'defence' that you're seeing things that aren't there and so on. 

 

There's a key difference between recognising how something can be read through a different lens and the bizarre "you're trying to ruin my favourite movies" knee jerk response that some people have to these things being pointed out. 

oh yes agreed ... you can still see how they are problematic (as I hope I said), articulate that and still recognise that the piece of work is still valid despite the failings.

 

Some works are dead in the water without the regressive elements and they tend to fall by the way side - countless films have done this over the years, as has Little Britain (as a recent example).

 

So yes very very different to the "you're trying to ruin my favourite movies" nonsense. You cannot "ruin" great movies  by pointing out regressive elements as they are great despite those (and in some case bolstered by those in a modern context).

 

The depiction of Fay Wray and "natives" in King Kong is deeply problematic but the film is a triumph of cinema regardless of that as if you strip that stuff away it is still a great film. Those elements that tarnish it can be recognised and accounted for whilst still appreciating the work.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The violence meted out to Jennifer Jason Leigh in The Hateful Eight is a bit much.  I know that she is playing a horrible character but there is a casualness to it. Tarantino treats it as an amusing sight gag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmmmmm yes Tarantino has form for this and I find it uncomfortable (see True Romance and Jackie Brown and Kill Bill as well for examples). The "torture porn" he seems to reserve for women is disturbing.

 

Now as a piece of work it is challenging and disturbing but does it cross a line? In places I think he dances on it and his attitude to women in general (the foot thing) tends to make me lean on the side of creepy.

 

But his films challenge on many levels - the treatment of Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction for instance as well as other scenes in reservoir dogs are also very uncomfortable in general.

 

I can't exonerate him and whilst I enjoy the films I can see the creepy elements that make me shudder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Clipper said:

oh yes agreed ... you can still see how they are problematic (as I hope I said), articulate that and still recognise that the piece of work is still valid despite the failings.

 

Some works are dead in the water without the regressive elements and they tend to fall by the way side - countless films have done this over the years, as has Little Britain (as a recent example).

 

So yes very very different to the "you're trying to ruin my favourite movies" nonsense. You cannot "ruin" great movies  by pointing out regressive elements as they are great despite those (and in some case bolstered by those in a modern context).

 

The depiction of Fay Wray and "natives" in King Kong is deeply problematic but the film is a triumph of cinema regardless of that as if you strip that stuff away it is still a great film. Those elements that tarnish it can be recognised and accounted for whilst still appreciating the work.

 

 

Precisely. I wasn't suggesting you meant the opposite, just repeating it in agreement I suppose :D

 

In terms of things like king Kong or really, really terrible depictions of things, triumph of the will is an amazing cinematic achievement and invented loads of the cinematic language still used today but it's also literally nazi propaganda, so that's the very definition of problematic :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everything about Goldeneye is broken; the sexual politics of Bond fighting for a kiss, the shitty computers, Xenia"s sexy moaning whenever she inflicts violence or has violence inflicted upon her.  That dreadful music during the initial car chase sequence.  Even the Broz's shitty massive blazer was crap.

 

I mentioned this in the rate the last film you saw thread, it's still Goldeneye but boy does it stink out the joint these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

same as pretty much every Bond film sadly - unless there is something else to prop it up you are looking at a dinosaur.

 

And that is speaking as someone who loves Roger Moore's Bond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bond raping a lesbian straight in Goldfinger is a particular highlight of the series.

 

More recently, The Boat that Rocked (Richard Curtis again !) is odious. The sex comedy tribute scene of fooling a woman to have sex with someone else in the dark was particularly bad 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of films of the 40's and 50's feel practically revolutionary by todays standards. They are predominantly white, but that aside the maturity of characterisation in something like Ace in the Hole or Treasure of Sierra Madre or makes todays films feel like Kindergarten at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ste_S said:

Bond raping a lesbian straight in Goldfinger is a particular highlight of the series.

 

More recently, The Boat that Rocked (Richard Curtis again !) is odious. The sex comedy tribute scene of fooling a woman to have sex with someone else in the dark was particularly bad 

 

And pretty much every other Curtis film too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ste_S said:

Bond raping a lesbian straight in Goldfinger is a particular highlight of the series.

 

Still, nothing in the films ever went quite as far as some of the stuff Fleming wrote. From the Goldfinger novel:

 

Quote

Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterton was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and 'sex equality’. As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits – barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but he had no time for them.

 

 

And The Spy Who Loved Me, the novel written from the Bond Girl's POV, has this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/26/when-ian-fleming-tried-to-escape-james-bond

Quote

Thereafter Fleming gives us the standard mayhem in which Bond routs the hoodlums before sleeping with the girl in a scene that finds the author using his female narrator to express a view for which he has been roundly and regularly condemned: "All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken. It was his sweet brutality against my bruised body that had made his act of love so piercingly wonderful."

 

Fleming, a confirmed fan of sadism in his own relationship, certainly meant it. In Casino Royale he had Bond musing in similar terms on the prospect of sex with Vesper Lynd: "And now he knew that … the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would have the sweet tang of rape."

 

And there's more! http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/10-offensive-quotes-from-ian-flemings.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Bond has come up, it's interesting to look at Danger Man, starring Patrick McGoohan. It's a 60s spy series (in fact I think in development it was actually going to be an adaptation of Bond before Fleming moved on) but the politics and attitudes are way ahead of a lot of its contemporaries. McGoohan's Drake rarely uses a gun, almost never kills the villains (if they do die, its usually being hoist by their own petard) and while he uses his considerable charms in the pursuit if his job he never romances the women in question (though a lot of them wish he would!). He argues and disagrees with his superiors constantly and, in what is probably one of my favourite episodes, he directly goes against them in order to prevent a wealthy businessman from staging a right-wing coup in a socialist South American country.

 

All this, stemming from McGoohan's own ethics ("No one kisses Patrick McGoohan except Mrs McGoohan" he once said) makes it very watchable today in a way that a lot of 60s shows aren't. They even go out of their way to get your actual ethnic actors as much as possible, though there is a little bit of brownface - Derren Nesbitt as a Lebanese assassin for instance - and in practice it does mean good old Burt Kwok is in a lot of episodes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.