Would rather sit through that again anytime!!
rate the last movie you saw
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Lolol
Would rather sit through that again anytime!!
Would rather sit through that again anytime!!
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9742
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
-The Strangers: Prey At Night (2018): 7.5
Unexpectedly good follow-up to the 2008 film is FAR better than you'd expect for a decade-later sequel, with stylish direction (gotta love any movie that breaks out the Brian De Palma split diopter these days), some great 80's cuts on the soundtrack, adequate acting (and it's eerie how much Bailee Madison has come to resemble a young Katie Holmes, considering Holmes played her stepmom in Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark) and some bracingly violent sequences. Too bad I saw it with THE most infuriating, stereotypical "horror movie audience" imaginable.
Laughing hysterically at things that weren't even remotely funny, yelling at the screen...just awful. More proof that horror movies are best appreciated at home, alone, with the lights turned off and the phone unplugged.
Unexpectedly good follow-up to the 2008 film is FAR better than you'd expect for a decade-later sequel, with stylish direction (gotta love any movie that breaks out the Brian De Palma split diopter these days), some great 80's cuts on the soundtrack, adequate acting (and it's eerie how much Bailee Madison has come to resemble a young Katie Holmes, considering Holmes played her stepmom in Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark) and some bracingly violent sequences. Too bad I saw it with THE most infuriating, stereotypical "horror movie audience" imaginable.
Laughing hysterically at things that weren't even remotely funny, yelling at the screen...just awful. More proof that horror movies are best appreciated at home, alone, with the lights turned off and the phone unplugged.-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
THE SHAPE OF WATER
7/10
Guillermo Del Toro’s Oscar winner checks off most of the boxes you need in a movie: gorgeous cinematography, a sense of time and place, and committed performances for starters. In fact, for a while, “The Shape of Water” is as magical as its opening sequence. With Richard Jenkins’ narration, Alexandre Desplat’s faux-John Williams score and (literally) flowing shots of an underwater landscape, Del Toro conjures up a dreamy cinematic world that’s easy to lose yourself in – at least until the movie’s heavy-handed story begins to unravel.
Sally Hawkins plays a mute girl working at a top-secret Baltimore government laboratory during the early ‘60s where a mysterious new arrival -- an “elemental River God” that resembles a hunkier, more emotive Creature From the Black Lagoon – is kept chained and confined to the water. Hawkins’ character bonds with the monster while a despicable government agent (Michael Shannon) – who (of course) quotes the Lord and (of course) has a sunny, “Leave It To Beaver” suburban family – sadistically mistreats the creature, hoping to utilize him, one way or another, in a Cold War battle with the Russians.
Del Toro and co-writer Vanessa Taylor’s script is a weird mismash of familiar concepts – a bit of the “Black Lagoon,” a dash of “Splash,” a little “Mad Men” (Hawkins’ best friend is Jenkins’ gay, recovering alcoholic advertising artist), some Cold War intrigue and a heaping of broad characterizations make for a movie that understandably polarized some viewers while receiving a mostly rapturous ovation from critics. If you buy into the film and its romance, the picture likely works wonders, but I found too much of the movie curiously detached from an emotional standpoint – it’s hard to believably feel Hawkins’ eventual connection with the Creature (played by Del Toro favorite Doug Jones), with the movie requiring a major suspension of disbelief once the couple “do it” in her bathroom. Beyond that, there are lots of cutesy moments between Hawkins and Jenkins that still come off as pleasant if nothing else, as well as supporting characters embodied by Octavia Spencer and Michael Stuhlbarg. In fact, the cast is uniformly fine with one exception – and that’s connected with the film morphing into “The Michael Shannon Show.”
Seriously, how many times do we have to see Shannon playing the same morally repugnant psycho he’s essayed on-screen in nearly every performance, from General Zod to “Premium Rush” to countless other films? Del Toro’s heavy-handed preachiness – we get it, the supposedly church-going authority figure with a family is the real monster! – is laid on as thick as Shannon’s overbearing villainy, and neither the script nor Shannon’s performance do anything to break the predictable narrative line one expects the film to go down once Del Toro lays all of the movie’s cards on the table.
“The Shape of Water” has been hailed as a “movie lover’s movie,” but I suppose I wasn’t the right movie lover for its waterlogged dramatic conflicts, which bog down what otherwise contains some of Del Toro’s most assured aesthetic work.
7/10
Guillermo Del Toro’s Oscar winner checks off most of the boxes you need in a movie: gorgeous cinematography, a sense of time and place, and committed performances for starters. In fact, for a while, “The Shape of Water” is as magical as its opening sequence. With Richard Jenkins’ narration, Alexandre Desplat’s faux-John Williams score and (literally) flowing shots of an underwater landscape, Del Toro conjures up a dreamy cinematic world that’s easy to lose yourself in – at least until the movie’s heavy-handed story begins to unravel.
Sally Hawkins plays a mute girl working at a top-secret Baltimore government laboratory during the early ‘60s where a mysterious new arrival -- an “elemental River God” that resembles a hunkier, more emotive Creature From the Black Lagoon – is kept chained and confined to the water. Hawkins’ character bonds with the monster while a despicable government agent (Michael Shannon) – who (of course) quotes the Lord and (of course) has a sunny, “Leave It To Beaver” suburban family – sadistically mistreats the creature, hoping to utilize him, one way or another, in a Cold War battle with the Russians.
Del Toro and co-writer Vanessa Taylor’s script is a weird mismash of familiar concepts – a bit of the “Black Lagoon,” a dash of “Splash,” a little “Mad Men” (Hawkins’ best friend is Jenkins’ gay, recovering alcoholic advertising artist), some Cold War intrigue and a heaping of broad characterizations make for a movie that understandably polarized some viewers while receiving a mostly rapturous ovation from critics. If you buy into the film and its romance, the picture likely works wonders, but I found too much of the movie curiously detached from an emotional standpoint – it’s hard to believably feel Hawkins’ eventual connection with the Creature (played by Del Toro favorite Doug Jones), with the movie requiring a major suspension of disbelief once the couple “do it” in her bathroom. Beyond that, there are lots of cutesy moments between Hawkins and Jenkins that still come off as pleasant if nothing else, as well as supporting characters embodied by Octavia Spencer and Michael Stuhlbarg. In fact, the cast is uniformly fine with one exception – and that’s connected with the film morphing into “The Michael Shannon Show.”
Seriously, how many times do we have to see Shannon playing the same morally repugnant psycho he’s essayed on-screen in nearly every performance, from General Zod to “Premium Rush” to countless other films? Del Toro’s heavy-handed preachiness – we get it, the supposedly church-going authority figure with a family is the real monster! – is laid on as thick as Shannon’s overbearing villainy, and neither the script nor Shannon’s performance do anything to break the predictable narrative line one expects the film to go down once Del Toro lays all of the movie’s cards on the table.
“The Shape of Water” has been hailed as a “movie lover’s movie,” but I suppose I wasn’t the right movie lover for its waterlogged dramatic conflicts, which bog down what otherwise contains some of Del Toro’s most assured aesthetic work.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
7 Days in Entebbe (3/10)
(spoilers)
Operation Thunderbolt -- the daring mission when Israeli soldiers flew to Uganda and rescued 102 kidnapped airline passengers -- is one of the great stories of heroism in Israel's brief history. But you get little sense of its true significance in this lopsided, suspense-less (and, toward the end, annoyingly pretentious) "thriller".
This story has been filmed before, with mixed results, in Canon Film's theatrical Operation Thunderbolt, as well as two made-for-TV movies -- Victory at Entebbe (a studio-bound, shot-on-video version for ABC) and Raid on Entebbe (directed by Irvin Kershner for NBC -- which was the best).
Presumably the people making 7 Days in Entebbe wanted to provide an "even handed" account of the events. Fair enough, but the film spends an undue amount of time following two bumbling, naive German socialists (Rosamund Pike and Daniel Bruhl) who've decided to join Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Much of the rest of the movie is devoted to Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez engaging in a lot of redundant shilly-shally about the best course of action (in scenes which have little dramatic tension).
But what truly irks me about 7 Days in Entebbe is how it goes out of its way to downplay the important role played by Jonathan Netanyahu (brother of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), the highly-respected and unflappable officer who led the strike team. Netanyahu exhibited great valor and was responsible for much of the success of the mission -- a mission from which he did not return (he was its only casualty). But this film shoves him into the background by not introducing him until the story is half-over, and never identifying who he actually is (until the final scene of the film). Unfortunately, this is like making a movie about Valley Forge and giving George Washington five minutes of screen time. Ironically the film does follow the story of another soldier -- a fictitious soldier -- who survives the rescue intact. The movie also wastes a lot of time on a pointless subplot concerning this soldier and his dancer girlfriend, which proves to be the undoing of the third act...
The climax of 7 Days in Entebbe -- as the IDF forces assault the terrorists and rescue the hostages -- is pretentious and heinously bad. Bafflingly, it inter-cuts the rescue sequence with pointless, unrelated shots of an avant garde dance troop (in which the soldier's girlfriend is performing). Apart from the fact it obliterates any dramatic tension, what the hell does it have to do with the rescue operation? Truly this is one of the worst and most off-puttting sequences I've ever seen. (I wonder if the director is a frustrated choreographer, as the end credits of this film consist of an even more bizarre dance sequence -- which likewise has nothing to do with the story.)
The raid on Entebbe is an important story, which should be told. Unfortunately 7 Days in Entebbe fails to deliver on any level. It downplays the real story -- an inspiring-yet-tragic account of heroism, sacrifice and the admirable resilience of the Israeli people -- and instead shifts the emphasis to idealistic nitwits, murderers...and dancers.
(spoilers)
Operation Thunderbolt -- the daring mission when Israeli soldiers flew to Uganda and rescued 102 kidnapped airline passengers -- is one of the great stories of heroism in Israel's brief history. But you get little sense of its true significance in this lopsided, suspense-less (and, toward the end, annoyingly pretentious) "thriller".
This story has been filmed before, with mixed results, in Canon Film's theatrical Operation Thunderbolt, as well as two made-for-TV movies -- Victory at Entebbe (a studio-bound, shot-on-video version for ABC) and Raid on Entebbe (directed by Irvin Kershner for NBC -- which was the best).
Presumably the people making 7 Days in Entebbe wanted to provide an "even handed" account of the events. Fair enough, but the film spends an undue amount of time following two bumbling, naive German socialists (Rosamund Pike and Daniel Bruhl) who've decided to join Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Much of the rest of the movie is devoted to Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez engaging in a lot of redundant shilly-shally about the best course of action (in scenes which have little dramatic tension).
But what truly irks me about 7 Days in Entebbe is how it goes out of its way to downplay the important role played by Jonathan Netanyahu (brother of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), the highly-respected and unflappable officer who led the strike team. Netanyahu exhibited great valor and was responsible for much of the success of the mission -- a mission from which he did not return (he was its only casualty). But this film shoves him into the background by not introducing him until the story is half-over, and never identifying who he actually is (until the final scene of the film). Unfortunately, this is like making a movie about Valley Forge and giving George Washington five minutes of screen time. Ironically the film does follow the story of another soldier -- a fictitious soldier -- who survives the rescue intact. The movie also wastes a lot of time on a pointless subplot concerning this soldier and his dancer girlfriend, which proves to be the undoing of the third act...
The climax of 7 Days in Entebbe -- as the IDF forces assault the terrorists and rescue the hostages -- is pretentious and heinously bad. Bafflingly, it inter-cuts the rescue sequence with pointless, unrelated shots of an avant garde dance troop (in which the soldier's girlfriend is performing). Apart from the fact it obliterates any dramatic tension, what the hell does it have to do with the rescue operation? Truly this is one of the worst and most off-puttting sequences I've ever seen. (I wonder if the director is a frustrated choreographer, as the end credits of this film consist of an even more bizarre dance sequence -- which likewise has nothing to do with the story.)
The raid on Entebbe is an important story, which should be told. Unfortunately 7 Days in Entebbe fails to deliver on any level. It downplays the real story -- an inspiring-yet-tragic account of heroism, sacrifice and the admirable resilience of the Israeli people -- and instead shifts the emphasis to idealistic nitwits, murderers...and dancers.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The matter of who his brother is, I think it is safe to say is *precisely* the reason why he would be downplayed. That wasn't the case in the "instant" productions when no one had any idea of who his brother was one day going to become.Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:11 am But what truly irks me about 7 Days in Entebbe is how it goes out of its way to downplay the important role played by Jonathan Netanyahu (brother of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), the highly-respected and unflappable officer who led the strike team. Netanyahu exhibited great valor and was responsible for much of the success of the mission -- a mission from which he did not return (he was its only casualty).
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Yeah. The conspicuous downplaying of Jonathan Netanyahu -- a major figure in the Entebbe raid -- smacks of a deliberate attempt to avoid anything which might reflect well on his brother.Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:21 am The matter of who his brother is, I think it is safe to say is *precisely* the reason why he would be downplayed. That wasn't the case in the "instant" productions when no one had any idea of who his brother was one day going to become.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
JUMANJI - WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
8/10
A surprise box-office smash, the belated follow-up JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE offers high adventure for kids, comedy and a bit of teen angst for high schoolers, and the entertainment value of seeing some of the only bankable stars left in Hollywood – including Dwayne Johnson – engagingly playing against type. The mixture wasn’t just a runaway hit, grossing over $400 million in the U.S. alone, but easily ranks as one of the most satisfying entries from Hollywood’s “remake machine” over the last decade.
Director Jake Kasdan and a quartet of credited screenwriters here deftly rework the 1995 Joe Johnson/Robin Williams fantasy (as well as Chris Van Allsburg’s book) by opening this continuation in 1996, where the original Jumanji game washes ashore and quickly re-configures itself as a video game system, nabbing its latest young victim in the process. Flash ahead two decades, and four high school classmates likewise find themselves trapped inside its fantastical adventure realm, teeming with elephants, rhinos, tigers and a maniacal bad guy (Bobby Canavale). Fortunately for our teen heroes, they also get to embody the game’s various characters, meaning a timid teen becomes the chiseled Johnson, his insecure crush is transformed into a kick-ass heroine (the highly fetching Karen Gillan), their football-star classmate is embodied by Kevin Hart, and a self-absorbed girl gets a shock after she’s trapped in the body of Jack Black (of course). The group has to work together to fight their way out of a variety of “levels,” while also running into the boy (Nick Jonas) who’s been trapped in the game for some 20 years.
Having watched so many terrible remakes/sequels/revivals/reboots over this early part of the 21st century, it’s gratifying to see someone finally get one right. While not any kind of classic, “Jumanji – Welcome to the Jungle” is an amiable and good-hearted film that’s sincerely made and enormously appealing. Kasdan spends sufficient time on the various characters and working them into familiar yet satisfying dramatic predicaments, all the while highlighting an ample amount of humor. Most of the comedy comes in Johnson playing a nervous hero and poking fun at his image, yet there’s nothing mean-spirited or cynical about the film. In fact, the movie manages to include positive messages and even a sincerely uplifting ending – tying in nicely with its predecessor – that feels genuine, not just a hollow retread as so many reboots typically are. With plenty of laughs from start to finish, it’s easy to see why audiences eagerly embraced this new “Jumanji” adventure.
8/10
A surprise box-office smash, the belated follow-up JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE offers high adventure for kids, comedy and a bit of teen angst for high schoolers, and the entertainment value of seeing some of the only bankable stars left in Hollywood – including Dwayne Johnson – engagingly playing against type. The mixture wasn’t just a runaway hit, grossing over $400 million in the U.S. alone, but easily ranks as one of the most satisfying entries from Hollywood’s “remake machine” over the last decade.
Director Jake Kasdan and a quartet of credited screenwriters here deftly rework the 1995 Joe Johnson/Robin Williams fantasy (as well as Chris Van Allsburg’s book) by opening this continuation in 1996, where the original Jumanji game washes ashore and quickly re-configures itself as a video game system, nabbing its latest young victim in the process. Flash ahead two decades, and four high school classmates likewise find themselves trapped inside its fantastical adventure realm, teeming with elephants, rhinos, tigers and a maniacal bad guy (Bobby Canavale). Fortunately for our teen heroes, they also get to embody the game’s various characters, meaning a timid teen becomes the chiseled Johnson, his insecure crush is transformed into a kick-ass heroine (the highly fetching Karen Gillan), their football-star classmate is embodied by Kevin Hart, and a self-absorbed girl gets a shock after she’s trapped in the body of Jack Black (of course). The group has to work together to fight their way out of a variety of “levels,” while also running into the boy (Nick Jonas) who’s been trapped in the game for some 20 years.
Having watched so many terrible remakes/sequels/revivals/reboots over this early part of the 21st century, it’s gratifying to see someone finally get one right. While not any kind of classic, “Jumanji – Welcome to the Jungle” is an amiable and good-hearted film that’s sincerely made and enormously appealing. Kasdan spends sufficient time on the various characters and working them into familiar yet satisfying dramatic predicaments, all the while highlighting an ample amount of humor. Most of the comedy comes in Johnson playing a nervous hero and poking fun at his image, yet there’s nothing mean-spirited or cynical about the film. In fact, the movie manages to include positive messages and even a sincerely uplifting ending – tying in nicely with its predecessor – that feels genuine, not just a hollow retread as so many reboots typically are. With plenty of laughs from start to finish, it’s easy to see why audiences eagerly embraced this new “Jumanji” adventure.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I gave the Orient Express remake another look last night, this time on Blu-Ray. The film made an even worse impression on me than it did the first time because on the smaller screen, the flaws get more magnified, especially the modern PC undercurrent in the makeover of certain characters like Arbuthnot which also gets expressed with more than a couple speeches about bashing America of the period for its racial attitudes. The entire opening of the film sets a totally wrong tone and frankly I'm surprised they didn't use the "alternate opening" that we saw the supplement of because it would have set things up much better.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Well we are entering Holy Week. Owing to the pressures of life and work, I may not find time to go through as many films as I ordinarily do at this time of year but I will try to do what I can (the annual viewing of POTC will take place on Good Friday as I always do it).
Started this evening with "Greatest Story Ever Told" which I think I skipped last year. I have been scared off from getting the Blu-Ray because of the bad notices it got and how it wasn't any better than the old DVD version I own which is a release approaching 16-17 years I think. (It's sometimes a bit intimidating to think how old some DVD releases in my collection are). It's a pity that the film hasn't gotten a proper Blu-Ray treatment and also some kind of supplementary material to try and find the footage cut from the film. I still wonder what additional scenes involved the likes of Angela Lansbury (as Pilate's wife) or Richard Conte's Barabbas, both of whom are reduced to under ten seconds of screen time in the final cut.
Started this evening with "Greatest Story Ever Told" which I think I skipped last year. I have been scared off from getting the Blu-Ray because of the bad notices it got and how it wasn't any better than the old DVD version I own which is a release approaching 16-17 years I think. (It's sometimes a bit intimidating to think how old some DVD releases in my collection are). It's a pity that the film hasn't gotten a proper Blu-Ray treatment and also some kind of supplementary material to try and find the footage cut from the film. I still wonder what additional scenes involved the likes of Angela Lansbury (as Pilate's wife) or Richard Conte's Barabbas, both of whom are reduced to under ten seconds of screen time in the final cut.
-
esteban miranda
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:21 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
It took me a minute to figure out why you watch Pirates of the Caribbean every Good Friday.Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:56 am Well we are entering Holy Week. Owing to the pressures of life and work, I may not find time to go through as many films as I ordinarily do at this time of year but I will try to do what I can (the annual viewing of POTC will take place on Good Friday as I always do it).
A lot of times I don't understand Internet abbreviations...
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Imagine the reaction of audiences if cinemas relied on title abbreviations!esteban miranda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:37 am It took me a minute to figure out why you watch Pirates of the Caribbean every Good Friday.
A lot of times I don't understand Internet abbreviations...
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I have to admit every time I see the acronym LOL in an e-mail or anything, my mind first thinks "Lots of Luck!".
Anyway.....tonight I watched "The Bible" (1966) which I think fits well into the season even if it's Old Testament. It and GSET were the last of the "old-school" Biblical epics and both IMO land for the same reasons overall. A straightforward narrative devoid of some of the bad fictional conceits that marred other tellings of the tale ("Sodom and Gomorrah" is just dreadful by comparison) that allows both films to seem more like an artwork of Biblical history being depicted on-screen.
The Blu-Ray was the best version of the film ever put out. I can remember how awful the first Laser Disc release looked and how it played the end credits music over a blank screen so that we never saw any cast/production credits on it!
Anyway.....tonight I watched "The Bible" (1966) which I think fits well into the season even if it's Old Testament. It and GSET were the last of the "old-school" Biblical epics and both IMO land for the same reasons overall. A straightforward narrative devoid of some of the bad fictional conceits that marred other tellings of the tale ("Sodom and Gomorrah" is just dreadful by comparison) that allows both films to seem more like an artwork of Biblical history being depicted on-screen.
The Blu-Ray was the best version of the film ever put out. I can remember how awful the first Laser Disc release looked and how it played the end credits music over a blank screen so that we never saw any cast/production credits on it!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I have a friend whose grandmother thought "LOL" meant "Lots of love". This proved rather awkward when a friend of hers posted about a death in the family, and she responded with "LOL".Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:08 pm I have to admit every time I see the acronym LOL in an e-mail or anything, my mind first thinks "Lots of Luck!".
I used to do movie nights with my pastor and his wife, and she (understandably) did not like scenes with nudity -- particularly shots of men's butts. So, when searching for something to show them on one occasion, I thought "What could be better than The Bible!" Unfortunately I had not yet actually seen the film myself when we all watched it...and to my horror, in the opening sequence, Adam rises and walks away from the camera stark naked!Anyway.....tonight I watched "The Bible" (1966) which I think fits well into the season even if it's Old Testament.
Fortunately I did get invited back to their home!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
At least they employed a 1966 standard of discretion that worked. Five years later I doubt they would have been as circumspect!
I can remember in the late 80s how a friend of my mother's involved with our church invited us and also the pastor to a Paper Mill Playhouse production of the play "Lend Me A Tenor" which while funny has its share of spicy moments. The man was spending the whole car ride afterwards apologizing to the pastor who was more bemused by the whole thing.
I can remember in the late 80s how a friend of my mother's involved with our church invited us and also the pastor to a Paper Mill Playhouse production of the play "Lend Me A Tenor" which while funny has its share of spicy moments. The man was spending the whole car ride afterwards apologizing to the pastor who was more bemused by the whole thing.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I made the critical error in judgment once of inviting some friends of mine from church over to my house for a movie night. We could not decide what to watch, but they wanted to see a comedy. They were going through my movie collection and found THE BIG LIEBOWSKI and asked if that was funny. For some odd reason that to this day baffles me, I told them it was absolutely hilarious and worth watching. I had totally forgotten about all the bad language and sex jokes in it.I was without excuse - these two couples were sitting there in absolute horror as the movie played and I, even though I was more uncomfortable than I have ever been in my life, was laughing nonetheless at the film. I did at one point tell them we could stop the film and put in something else, but they told me not to stop it. I don't think one of the women there had ever heard so much swearing in her life, let alone the words they were using. I am still friends with them to this day but they did not come back over to my house for a movie night...lol...I still apologize to Dave and Sara to this day.