|
Clifford is a Dadaist film. It's like one of those fake bad movies you see in other films or TV shows except it's real.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Snak posted:Imagine if you took the plot of Tootsie and added children to it. I've never actually seen Tootsie, it did well on the AFI top 100 comedies of the 20th century list,. However Mrs Doubtfire was number 67, and I'm honestly surprised they could find 33 films that were less funny, so I'm not sure if I trust their ranking system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
I re-watched Tootsie this year, and it holds up and is still good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Even if you accept the premise, Mrs. Doubtfire is a really lovely movie. Honestly almost all of Robin Williams' 90s "family" movies were lovely and grotesque, the only difference seemed to be whether they swung more towards wacky farce like Mrs. Doubtfire or cloying sentimentality like Jack or Bicentennial Man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Sleeveless posted:Honestly almost all of Robin Williams' 90s "family" movies were lovely and grotesque, the only difference seemed to be whether they swung more towards wacky farce like Mrs. Doubtfire or cloying sentimentality like Jack or Bicentennial Man. And in every one, there were several minutes of maudlin_robin_williams.jpeg
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
In Robin Williams mind, One Hour Photo was a comedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Clifford is a Dadaist film. It's like one of those fake bad movies you see in other films or TV shows except it's real. All I've ever seen from Clifford is this clip https://youtu.be/UuFwIhKLsXM so based on the evidence available I have no choice but to assume the movie is VERY good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
The great thing about Clifford is that it ends with Charles Grodin refusing the sincere apology of a child who has learned an important life lesson, and then abandoning that same child while calling him an inhuman thing. The grotesqueness of child Martin Short overshadows the wretched sadism of the plot, but they're really equal factors in making the film so repulsive. It seems to make up part of a movement to make children's entertainment as vicious as possible, along with the Problem Child films that came out at about the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:In Robin Williams mind, One Hour Photo was a comedy. This probably isn't true, but he was probably completely aware of how hosed up movies like Mrs. Doubtfire were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Snak posted:This probably isn't true, but he was probably completely aware of how hosed up movies like Mrs. Doubtfire were. Yeah,but he was already rich at that point and probably had tons of options for roles, so why did he make that one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah,but he was already rich at that point and probably had tons of options for roles, so why did he make that one? I'm not even sure the fact that the premise is totally hosed up is a mark against it. Like, it's basically a movie for kids and people who like dumb humor and like Robin Williams. The fact that it's actually hosed up and weird isn't really a big deal because it's not like actually endorsing the behavior, except tacitly by having the protagonist of a movie do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Snak posted:I'm not even sure the fact that the premise is totally hosed up is a mark against it. Like, it's basically a movie for kids and people who like dumb humor and like Robin Williams. The fact that it's actually hosed up and weird isn't really a big deal because it's not like actually endorsing the behavior, except tacitly by having the protagonist of a movie do it. And he "wins" and is rewarded for his incredibly hosed up behaviour. It's like Revenge of the Nerds basically. If a character does a majorly hosed up thing and is rewarded for it – with no commentary (like in Nightcrawler where the movie itself tells us that he is despicable) – then the movie basically condones their actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:And he "wins" and is rewarded for his incredibly hosed up behaviour. It's like Revenge of the Nerds basically. If a character does a majorly hosed up thing and is rewarded for it – with no commentary (like in Nightcrawler where the movie itself tells us that he is despicable) – then the movie basically condones their actions. Are you saying Nightcrawler condones his actions? Can a movie not show a slice of a hosed up characters life without condoning? I think you have to be able to leave it up to the audience at some point; even if the main reading is incorrect. Just like Wolf of Wall Street
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Are you saying Nightcrawler condones his actions? I am saying that Nightcrawler does not condone Lou's actions. Read what I posted again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
My parents let me see all kinds of horrible and inappropriate poo poo, and Clifford was still more upsetting than anything I can think of. Also, of those ill-judged family comedy movies that Robin Williams made in the 90s, Patch Adams was the most obnoxiously cloying. Not only did he have that saccharin stomach turning tendency to try and make you feel warm and fuzzy, there almost always had to be scenes to showcase Robin doing his manic improv shtick. How many films did he suddenly start doing an elderly Jewish man voice for no reason? I feel like the only time it ever worked on film was in Aladdin. And Jesus Christ, what was Coppola thinking when he directed Jack? Also, Being Human was affecting in all of the worst, unintentional ways. I'm possibly the only person that saw it though. Only made 5% of its budget back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:My parents let me see all kinds of horrible and inappropriate poo poo, and Clifford was still more upsetting than anything I can think of. Also it was a tremendous insult to the real Patch Adams, who despises it and whose genuine positive legacy will be forever tarnished by that manic piece of poo poo's poor judgment. At least the real Oliver Sacks was on Radiolab a bunch so that people know more about him than Awakenings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Seeing Patch Adams as a kid was the first time I ever felt personally affronted by a film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
What are you guys talking about? Clifford is amazing. Complaining that Charles Grodin yells at a kid at the end is like saying Pee Wee's Big Adventure is irresponsible for letting a kid go on a cross country road trip by himself. Actually both movies are thematically similar if not tonally. They're both about the singular focus of kids before they learn to empathize with the people around them so they exhibit sociopathic behavior to get what they want. And both movies are hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Mrs. Doubtfire is basically about the American Dream. That you are entitled to lie, cheat, steal, and attempt murder to achieve what you feel you deserve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Also it was a tremendous insult to the real Patch Adams, who despises it and whose genuine positive legacy will be forever tarnished by that manic piece of poo poo's poor judgment. I thought I was crazy for a moment, but Awakenings is Oliver Sacks, not Patch Adams.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Also it was a tremendous insult to the real Patch Adams, who despises it and whose genuine positive legacy will be forever tarnished by that manic piece of poo poo's poor judgment. I always felt bad for the lady that Dangerous Minds was based on because apparently that movie and the TV show spinoff torpedoed her career because she didn't own the rights or have creative control over what they had "her" saying and doing and people thought she was really doing things like taking her students to strip clubs as a fundraiser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
KidVanguard posted:What are you guys talking about? Clifford is amazing. Complaining that Charles Grodin yells at a kid at the end is like saying Pee Wee's Big Adventure is irresponsible for letting a kid go on a cross country road trip by himself. I nearly included that I had a similar intuition regarding connections between these two movies. They both feel sort of like creepy old carnival rides. With Clifford, though, you feel like the scary clown might try and touch you, while Pee Wee is content to play with himself. I don't even think I can say which one is better, but I can say that Clifford piles on a much greater atmosphere of menace. I think, seeing it as a little kid I was probably confused that creepy Martin Short boy clearly wasn't supposed to be the good guy, but Grodin wasn't likable or relatable for a child to really get behind either. I remember this had a funny review from Siskel & Ebert. They hated it and couldn't get past the creepiness of Short. Siskel said he made the mistake of taking a friend's kid to see it, and, aghast, Ebert said it would have been more appropriate to bring him to see The Good Son.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:
Coppola's last gasps of greatness were The Godfather Part III and Bram Stoker's Dracula. I don't know what the gently caress happened to him after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Timby posted:Coppola's last gasps of greatness were The Godfather Part III and Bram Stoker's Dracula. I don't know what the gently caress happened to him after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:And Jesus Christ, what was Coppola thinking when he directed Jack? Francis Ford Coppola posted:People feel the worst film I made was Jack. But to this day, when I get checks from old movies I've made, Jack is one of the biggest ones. No one knows that. If people hate the movie, they hate the movie. I just wanted to work with Robin Williams.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Timby posted:Coppola's last gasps of greatness were The Godfather Part III and Bram Stoker's Dracula. I don't know what the gently caress happened to him after that. In Godfather Part III Michael unironically says "we need to save the Pope" so I think those were just gasps sans greatness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Dracula is pretty rad
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:In Godfather Part III Michael unironically says "we need to save the Pope" so I think those were just gasps sans greatness. Godfather 3 is a decent movie with some good stuff in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Godfather 3 is a decent movie with some good stuff in it. It is a terrible film and is in fact not decent at all. All the romance stuff is dreadful and also EmmyOk posted:In Godfather Part III Michael unironically says "we need to save the Pope"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
For some reason you think that is a bad line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
A lot of the film seems very overblown and almost like a saturday morning cartoon, the helicopter attack and that line are prime offenders. The plot also felt far more out there and twisted than the previous films. By itself it probably would be not so bad but compared to the other two it fell flat because it just wasn't as good as well as not really fitting in with them as the final piece of the trilogy. Also that line is dreck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
No it is wacky and goofy and therefore it is a very good line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Godfather 3 is a decent movie with some good stuff in it. Take the over-the-top helicopter attack and Sofia Coppola out and I honestly think it's excellent. It's a gorgeous film and I love the political intrigue with the Vatican.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Plus, it gave us... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJpVyMAlPBs
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:I am saying that Nightcrawler does not condone Lou's actions. Read what I posted again. Sorry! Was not in the right mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Cool World is a typical 50 for me. I can't think of any emotions I had from watching it. 3/5 of those are still worth seeing at least once. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocS2GFICJoY
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
I saw Mrs. Doubtfire when it was released and had a definitively negative reaction to it. I wasn't even sure why. The reaction was visceral, and I didn't bother to analyze it except that if it had gone on for another ten minutes, I fear I would have thrown myself at the screen trying to claw my fingernails into Robin Williams's eyes. But the stuff folks have said here seem pretty spot on. Now, then...am I the only one who had a similar reaction to Forrest loving Gump? Not that it was creepy in the same way, but it just seems terribly wrongheaded in a way I can't put my finger on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
No, that's definitely a valid reaction to Gump. Speaking of movies that discard the source novel, Zemeckis and company basically removed all the satirical elements from the original book to create a very narrow and nostalgia-drenched look at the Sixties and Seventies where anyone involved with any kind of social change or counter-culture is painted as a victimizer or a victim, and the dull-witted guy who just goes with the flow ends up leading a charmed life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:No, that's definitely a valid reaction to Gump. Speaking of movies that discard the source novel, Zemeckis and company basically removed all the satirical elements from the original book to create a very narrow and nostalgia-drenched look at the Sixties and Seventies where anyone involved with any kind of social change or counter-culture is painted as a victimizer or a victim, and the dull-witted guy who just goes with the flow ends up leading a charmed life. That sounds about right. I recall a few years ago, someone on another forum (I don't remember where) posted the opinion that—and I paraphrase here—the message of the movie is that the way to get along in life is to be dumb and have no ambition. I liked it, but it didn't seem to quite sum up what I felt I wanted to object to. As far as the novel is concerned, I didn't read it. But if it's more satirical, I might be open to giving it a chance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:No, that's definitely a valid reaction to Gump. Speaking of movies that discard the source novel, Zemeckis and company basically removed all the satirical elements from the original book to create a very narrow and nostalgia-drenched look at the Sixties and Seventies where anyone involved with any kind of social change or counter-culture is painted as a victimizer or a victim, and the dull-witted guy who just goes with the flow ends up leading a charmed life. This is certainly an interpretation, but it's like Newt Gingrich's reading. Forrest is a "slow" man but he's not ignorant to his own condition. One of the most powerful scenes in the movie is when he meets his son for the first time and is worried that his son was as dumb as he was. Gump's character arc through the film is developing the capacity to express his emotions, especially to the one he's loved since high school (or before). If they wanted to portray him as a simple Conservative fella who just Did Right™ there would've been numerous opportunities to do so that they didn't do (the speech at the Vietnam protest, for example).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 12:50
|
|
