rate the last movie you saw
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Well, The Last Jedi has Daisy Ridley...but Gods of Egypt has Courtney Eton!
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35758
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Even Joanne mentioned to me, as we were watching LAST JEDI the other night, that it has a lot of unattractive women in it. Daisy Ridley doesn't do a whole lot for me on that end, and Laura Dern and Carrie Fisher both looked awful. So did all the supporting "rebel women" including the one with the large nose who shows up all the time. I wasnt really into Kelly Marie Tran either, but she looks a lot cuter in "real life" than she does in this film also. It's like they were all done no favors by the way the movie was filmed and they were lit.
Meanwhile, they made sure Adam Driver (who's not the most attractive man in the world by any means) had a shirtless scene...but as Joanne said, how many girls want that?
Meanwhile, they made sure Adam Driver (who's not the most attractive man in the world by any means) had a shirtless scene...but as Joanne said, how many girls want that?
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
These new Star Wars movies are a clear attempt to push an agenda -- the villains are all white men, and the courageous leaders are old ladies, and the heroic main character a frumpy girl.AndyDursin wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 12:08 pm Even Joanne mentioned to me, as we were watching LAST JEDI the other night, that it has a lot of unattractive women in it. Daisy Ridley doesn't do a whole lot for me on that end, and Laura Dern and Carrie Fisher both looked awful. So did all the supporting "rebel women" including the one with the large nose who shows up all the time. I wasnt really into Kelly Marie Tran either, but she looks a lot cuter in "real life" than she does in this film also. It's like they were all done no favors by the way the movie was filmed and they were lit.
Meanwhile, they made sure Adam Driver (who's not the most attractive man in the world by any means) had a shirtless scene...but as Joanne said, how many girls want that?
And yes, I know "substance, not looks, is what counts". But appearance is one of the main reasons any given movie star is popular -- they are pleasing to behold. That is why Harrison Ford, not John Belushi, was cast to play Han Solo.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35758
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
DEADPOOL 2
8/10
Engagingly disarming sequel offers "more of the same" -- which here is a very good thing, as Ryan Reynolds' R-rated Marvel outsider again satirizes the increasingly stale super-hero genre with a raunchy, often very funny sequel. The plot finds Deadpool trying to steer a young mutant onto the right path, which of course results in catastrophe and a visit from a time-traveling badass named Cable (Josh Brolin). Appearances from minor characters in the X-Men stable pop up, as does a heaping of self-deprecating comedy that extends all the way down to the funniest choral chanting in a film underscore ever.
The secret of this film -- which is fun, funny, and more entertaining than anything Marvel itself has turned out in years -- is that Reynolds (who co-wrote this outing with a returning Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick) keeps the film grounded with the right tone from start to finish: like its predecessor, "Deadpool" is acerbic and often outright hilarious. I haven't laughed at any film as much as I did with this in recent memory, and yet while there is a story and a bit of heart, there are no tonal shifts for "the boring parts" to derail the fun. In the hands of another director (say Matthew Vaughn), it would've been easy for "Deadpool" to lose its way with its violent sections or turn heavy-handed with plot -- but Reynolds and director David Leitch (coming over from the original "John Wick") never lose the light touch, and the humor, resulting in a fourth-wall breaking adventure that gives adult viewers the comic book action they might crave from the genre -- but also the tongue-in-cheek grilling it deserves at the same time.
8/10
Engagingly disarming sequel offers "more of the same" -- which here is a very good thing, as Ryan Reynolds' R-rated Marvel outsider again satirizes the increasingly stale super-hero genre with a raunchy, often very funny sequel. The plot finds Deadpool trying to steer a young mutant onto the right path, which of course results in catastrophe and a visit from a time-traveling badass named Cable (Josh Brolin). Appearances from minor characters in the X-Men stable pop up, as does a heaping of self-deprecating comedy that extends all the way down to the funniest choral chanting in a film underscore ever.
The secret of this film -- which is fun, funny, and more entertaining than anything Marvel itself has turned out in years -- is that Reynolds (who co-wrote this outing with a returning Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick) keeps the film grounded with the right tone from start to finish: like its predecessor, "Deadpool" is acerbic and often outright hilarious. I haven't laughed at any film as much as I did with this in recent memory, and yet while there is a story and a bit of heart, there are no tonal shifts for "the boring parts" to derail the fun. In the hands of another director (say Matthew Vaughn), it would've been easy for "Deadpool" to lose its way with its violent sections or turn heavy-handed with plot -- but Reynolds and director David Leitch (coming over from the original "John Wick") never lose the light touch, and the humor, resulting in a fourth-wall breaking adventure that gives adult viewers the comic book action they might crave from the genre -- but also the tongue-in-cheek grilling it deserves at the same time.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35758
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
COLD TURKEY
6.5/10
Caustic Norman Lear production looks at how a small Iowa town of some 4,000 attempt to quit smoking in order to win a $25 million payout from a tobacco corporation. A terrific cast is the key reason to check out “Cold Turkey,” with Dick Van Dyke’s pious reverend attempting to steer his wayward flock onto the right path (even while losing touch with his wife, played by Pippa Scott) and a who’s-who of character actors and comedic talents – Bob Newhart, Bob & Ray, Jean Stapleton, Tom Poston, Bernard Hughes, Vincent Gardenia, Paul Benedict, M. Emmet Walsh – in support.
The movie is highly uneven and plays with a heavy-hand, right down to its cynical ending, but those old enough to remember the performers will likely find the film of interest, even if it’s a detached one. Olive’s Blu-Ray is a likewise inconsistent affair, the MGM-licensed 1080p (1.85) master showing nicks and scratches, along with varying degrees of noise-reduction – at times looking far too glossy while occasionally detailed when the DNR hasn’t been as judiciously applied. The DTS MA mono sound houses an early Randy Newman score
6.5/10
Caustic Norman Lear production looks at how a small Iowa town of some 4,000 attempt to quit smoking in order to win a $25 million payout from a tobacco corporation. A terrific cast is the key reason to check out “Cold Turkey,” with Dick Van Dyke’s pious reverend attempting to steer his wayward flock onto the right path (even while losing touch with his wife, played by Pippa Scott) and a who’s-who of character actors and comedic talents – Bob Newhart, Bob & Ray, Jean Stapleton, Tom Poston, Bernard Hughes, Vincent Gardenia, Paul Benedict, M. Emmet Walsh – in support.
The movie is highly uneven and plays with a heavy-hand, right down to its cynical ending, but those old enough to remember the performers will likely find the film of interest, even if it’s a detached one. Olive’s Blu-Ray is a likewise inconsistent affair, the MGM-licensed 1080p (1.85) master showing nicks and scratches, along with varying degrees of noise-reduction – at times looking far too glossy while occasionally detailed when the DNR hasn’t been as judiciously applied. The DTS MA mono sound houses an early Randy Newman score
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Solo: A Star Wars Story (6/10)
(No spoilers)
An unremarkable time-passer, which neither instills any feelings of nostalgia (in this Star Wars fan anyway) nor brings anything fresh to either the Star Wars universe or contemporary "popcorn cinema".
It is more upbeat and "fun" than Rogue One, but -- like Rogue One -- still feels like fan fiction. It "moves" but it is also frenetic, with sometimes-confusing action scenes, and it often reminded me more of a Marvel movie than anything George Lucas ever created. It is also formulaic, with once again a "cantina"-type sequence, an eccentric CGI alien (who provides "comic" relief) and white male British villains. There are lots of space battles / chases and blaster fights -- i.e. the same-old, same-old. Effects work is spiffy and "looks cool" -- but these days praising a summer blockbuster for having cool effects is like praising it for being shot in focus. And not to give anything away, but there is a scene late in the movie which really made me groan, it was so contrived. Nowhere near as bad as "Mary Poppins", but pretty stupid.
Alden Ehrenreich gives a fine performance, but the character doesn't really "feel" like Han Solo to me. I also find it hard to see anything he experiences in this film as forming the foundation of the Han Solo of Episodes IV-VI. He just doesn't seem at all the same person.
John Powell's score is well-written, and "follows the drama", yet doesn't have any real emotional resonance. Despite copious themes and nice orchestrations, it still has that "Remote Control white sound" quality. There is occasional use of weird choral parts too. The music for the climatic space chase is also a random potpourri of John Williams cues from the original trilogy, which I found distracting (far-more so than the way John Williams re-purposed his old cues in The Last Jedi). I did like Powell's score much better than Giacchino's Rogue One, but in terms of dramatic uplift, it pales beside Williams' Last Jedi.
I emerged from this film feeling like "I didn't need a movie about Han Solo". One of the things which made Solo an interesting character in the original trilogy is that we didn't know who he was, or where he'd come from. That added a great mystique to him -- one which this movie doesn't necessarily ruin, but (like episodes 7 & 8, and Rogue One) Solo: A Star Wars Story does dilute some of the things which made the classic Star Wars movies special.
(No spoilers)
An unremarkable time-passer, which neither instills any feelings of nostalgia (in this Star Wars fan anyway) nor brings anything fresh to either the Star Wars universe or contemporary "popcorn cinema".
It is more upbeat and "fun" than Rogue One, but -- like Rogue One -- still feels like fan fiction. It "moves" but it is also frenetic, with sometimes-confusing action scenes, and it often reminded me more of a Marvel movie than anything George Lucas ever created. It is also formulaic, with once again a "cantina"-type sequence, an eccentric CGI alien (who provides "comic" relief) and white male British villains. There are lots of space battles / chases and blaster fights -- i.e. the same-old, same-old. Effects work is spiffy and "looks cool" -- but these days praising a summer blockbuster for having cool effects is like praising it for being shot in focus. And not to give anything away, but there is a scene late in the movie which really made me groan, it was so contrived. Nowhere near as bad as "Mary Poppins", but pretty stupid.
Alden Ehrenreich gives a fine performance, but the character doesn't really "feel" like Han Solo to me. I also find it hard to see anything he experiences in this film as forming the foundation of the Han Solo of Episodes IV-VI. He just doesn't seem at all the same person.
John Powell's score is well-written, and "follows the drama", yet doesn't have any real emotional resonance. Despite copious themes and nice orchestrations, it still has that "Remote Control white sound" quality. There is occasional use of weird choral parts too. The music for the climatic space chase is also a random potpourri of John Williams cues from the original trilogy, which I found distracting (far-more so than the way John Williams re-purposed his old cues in The Last Jedi). I did like Powell's score much better than Giacchino's Rogue One, but in terms of dramatic uplift, it pales beside Williams' Last Jedi.
I emerged from this film feeling like "I didn't need a movie about Han Solo". One of the things which made Solo an interesting character in the original trilogy is that we didn't know who he was, or where he'd come from. That added a great mystique to him -- one which this movie doesn't necessarily ruin, but (like episodes 7 & 8, and Rogue One) Solo: A Star Wars Story does dilute some of the things which made the classic Star Wars movies special.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
There are two documentaries of recent vintage out, both about Steve McQueen and its fascinating how both serve as companion pieces in documenting two distinct phases of his life.
Steve McQueen: The Man And Le Mans covers the story of the making of the film that represented McQueen's total self-destruction at that point in time. His obsession with racing, the desire to do the ultimate authentic racing movie (the documentary doesn't mention how he'd lost the lead part for "Grand Prix" to James Garner, though the part was clearly more suited to him) and how in the wake of his panic over learning he was on the Manson family hit list turned the filming experience into a self-destruction odyssey that cost him his first marriage (Neile McQueen finally reveals that to get even with him for his affairs, she had one with Maxmilian Schell) and also left him with a disaster of a film that while brilliantly authentic in its racing details simply has no story. I don't find myself agreeing with the view that McQueen was somehow ahead of his time with the film or that the film is justified cult classic because the film is just very tedious to sit through as I found recently.
Steve McQueen: American Icon covers the final phase of his life and gives us the story that isn't told enough of how in his last year he suddenly found a new peace in his conversion to Born-Again Christianity. It wasn't something that happened in response to his cancer diagnosis it happened before he was diagnosed. Even as he tried to fight the disease with unorthodox (and likely quack) treatments in Mexico, he amazingly still found himself at peace in his new faith. The last person he met before flying to Mexico for his ultimately fatal operation was Reverend Billy Graham and when he died he was holding a Bible Graham had given to him.
Seeing both documentaries back to back is fascinating because in the first one you hear from first wife Neile and son Chad. Chad seems to have grown up in life idolizing his father's earlier bad-boy behavior and probably views his late conversion as an act of eccentricity. Third wife Barbara, whom McQueen married ten months before his death, is featured in the second one. Both utilize clips from McQueen's last ever interview, an audio one he did in Mexico just three weeks before his death. The first is ultimately about how McQueen peaked and crashed and brought himself to near ruin. The second is about how he was able to learn the limits of what being a star can bring (both documentaries make the point how getting top billing over Paul Newman in"Towering Inferno" seemed to be the last mountain he wanted to conquer as a movie star) and how he had started to change his life. Had McQueen lived, he probably would never have starred in a big budget movie again and likely would have contented himself with character parts now and then while living the simple life in Idaho.
Steve McQueen: The Man And Le Mans covers the story of the making of the film that represented McQueen's total self-destruction at that point in time. His obsession with racing, the desire to do the ultimate authentic racing movie (the documentary doesn't mention how he'd lost the lead part for "Grand Prix" to James Garner, though the part was clearly more suited to him) and how in the wake of his panic over learning he was on the Manson family hit list turned the filming experience into a self-destruction odyssey that cost him his first marriage (Neile McQueen finally reveals that to get even with him for his affairs, she had one with Maxmilian Schell) and also left him with a disaster of a film that while brilliantly authentic in its racing details simply has no story. I don't find myself agreeing with the view that McQueen was somehow ahead of his time with the film or that the film is justified cult classic because the film is just very tedious to sit through as I found recently.
Steve McQueen: American Icon covers the final phase of his life and gives us the story that isn't told enough of how in his last year he suddenly found a new peace in his conversion to Born-Again Christianity. It wasn't something that happened in response to his cancer diagnosis it happened before he was diagnosed. Even as he tried to fight the disease with unorthodox (and likely quack) treatments in Mexico, he amazingly still found himself at peace in his new faith. The last person he met before flying to Mexico for his ultimately fatal operation was Reverend Billy Graham and when he died he was holding a Bible Graham had given to him.
Seeing both documentaries back to back is fascinating because in the first one you hear from first wife Neile and son Chad. Chad seems to have grown up in life idolizing his father's earlier bad-boy behavior and probably views his late conversion as an act of eccentricity. Third wife Barbara, whom McQueen married ten months before his death, is featured in the second one. Both utilize clips from McQueen's last ever interview, an audio one he did in Mexico just three weeks before his death. The first is ultimately about how McQueen peaked and crashed and brought himself to near ruin. The second is about how he was able to learn the limits of what being a star can bring (both documentaries make the point how getting top billing over Paul Newman in"Towering Inferno" seemed to be the last mountain he wanted to conquer as a movie star) and how he had started to change his life. Had McQueen lived, he probably would never have starred in a big budget movie again and likely would have contented himself with character parts now and then while living the simple life in Idaho.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Star Wars (1977) (Despecialized Edition) 8.5 of 10
Well it came yesterday and it was great to see an anamorphic version of the correct version of the film. Even for those of us who experienced this film with the innocent perspective of 1977 when it was brand new and nothing else lay ahead, you can't recapture that feeling 100% but this will be as close as you can get to it until the official release comes. I was impressed that they even removed the "Episode IV" notation at the beginning of the crawl which I think dates to 79.
Reading the feature on the re-editing of the last battle did help me self-consciously become aware for the first time how it was indeed put together on the fly and how the editing team made brilliant use of the available footage of Peter Cushing to create the final part of the Death Star in range to fire on Yavin (the one thing they didn't get right is the voiceover added for the countdown never matches the time on the screen).
The despecialized version works best for the Tattoine sequences because the rough, rugged simplicity of the Tunisia locations helped sell the believability of a remote planet. Mos Eisley in the original version is believable as a place where there's a "wretched hive of scum and villainy" (I love that fanfare and the matte painting shot as we see it for the first time from the cliff). I have to admit one thing that I never realized before was how inappropriate it is for Threepio upon arrival in Mos Eisley to comment on the Jawas as "disgusting creatures" when he just went through the solemnity of burning the bodies of the Jawas who'd been slaughtered by the stormtroopers!
My "placeholders" are now secure and the rest is now up to the powers that be to deliver and get me to one day replace them.
Well it came yesterday and it was great to see an anamorphic version of the correct version of the film. Even for those of us who experienced this film with the innocent perspective of 1977 when it was brand new and nothing else lay ahead, you can't recapture that feeling 100% but this will be as close as you can get to it until the official release comes. I was impressed that they even removed the "Episode IV" notation at the beginning of the crawl which I think dates to 79.
Reading the feature on the re-editing of the last battle did help me self-consciously become aware for the first time how it was indeed put together on the fly and how the editing team made brilliant use of the available footage of Peter Cushing to create the final part of the Death Star in range to fire on Yavin (the one thing they didn't get right is the voiceover added for the countdown never matches the time on the screen).
The despecialized version works best for the Tattoine sequences because the rough, rugged simplicity of the Tunisia locations helped sell the believability of a remote planet. Mos Eisley in the original version is believable as a place where there's a "wretched hive of scum and villainy" (I love that fanfare and the matte painting shot as we see it for the first time from the cliff). I have to admit one thing that I never realized before was how inappropriate it is for Threepio upon arrival in Mos Eisley to comment on the Jawas as "disgusting creatures" when he just went through the solemnity of burning the bodies of the Jawas who'd been slaughtered by the stormtroopers!
My "placeholders" are now secure and the rest is now up to the powers that be to deliver and get me to one day replace them.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35758
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Bingo. IMO most anyone interested in these black market affairs are going to be the first ones to line up for official releases if we ever see them...they are not at all going to hurt eventual sales of a possible official release. Until then, I don't blame fans for "doing what they have to" in order to enjoy the STAR WARS they watched and enjoyed years ago.My "placeholders" are now secure and the rest is now up to the powers that be to deliver and get me to one day replace them.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10544
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Dammit, can someone PM me where I could buy the unmolested OT?
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Bullitt (1968) 8 of 10
-In general, I tend not to like films that often sacrifice narrative cohesion for the sake of visual gimmicks (2001) but "Bullitt' is a nice exception to that rule for me. The car chase and the less well-known but equally compelling IMO climax at the airport (the logistics on the runways at night with jets taking off had to be quite a challenge) are so brilliant and compelling that I suspect it's also possible to then realize if you've gone a long time without seeing the film, you really don't know what the actual plot of the film is about! In fact it takes more than a viewing to really grasp what's been going on regarding the witness etc. But the SF locations and the staging of those two scenes and the great performances by McQueen and the ensemble (I've seen so much of Simon Oakland in his out of control superior mode in "Kolchak" so many times since I last saw "Bullitt" that its refreshing to see him play the other extreme of a superior who is willing to quietly support and back the unorthodox Bullitt) that it doesn't matter.
-In general, I tend not to like films that often sacrifice narrative cohesion for the sake of visual gimmicks (2001) but "Bullitt' is a nice exception to that rule for me. The car chase and the less well-known but equally compelling IMO climax at the airport (the logistics on the runways at night with jets taking off had to be quite a challenge) are so brilliant and compelling that I suspect it's also possible to then realize if you've gone a long time without seeing the film, you really don't know what the actual plot of the film is about! In fact it takes more than a viewing to really grasp what's been going on regarding the witness etc. But the SF locations and the staging of those two scenes and the great performances by McQueen and the ensemble (I've seen so much of Simon Oakland in his out of control superior mode in "Kolchak" so many times since I last saw "Bullitt" that its refreshing to see him play the other extreme of a superior who is willing to quietly support and back the unorthodox Bullitt) that it doesn't matter.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
World Trade Center (2006) 6.5 of 10
-I saw this theatrically and at the time I was more positive of it because Oliver Stone did pretty much rein in all his bad instincts. Then I went a decade without seeing it for whatever reason while the other big movie made about 9/11, "United 93" I have seen many times over the years since. I can now see why "United 93" remains compelling whereas "World Trade Center" I don't think has aged well. The chief problem is that whereas "United 93" is a film that presents us with the full scope of what the day was about in the confined setting of what happened on this flight, "World Trade Center" is much too narrow in its focus. The story of the two rescued Port Authority policemen is a great story about the day amidst all this tragedy but a full blown movie about just them has the sad effect of really reducing the magnitude of what happened that day. In the end, their trapped situation in the rubble and the effort to free them almost tends to play more like a big screen "Emergency" episode situation more. Stone *could* have broadened the scope a bit more and there are hints of what he could have done with the random policeman from Wisconsin coming out to the scene, and also the moment at the end where the families of these two survivors go past a bulletin board of all the missing people at the WTC but by this point its almost too little too late. In the end, the impact of the film just isn't in the same category of "United 93".
-I saw this theatrically and at the time I was more positive of it because Oliver Stone did pretty much rein in all his bad instincts. Then I went a decade without seeing it for whatever reason while the other big movie made about 9/11, "United 93" I have seen many times over the years since. I can now see why "United 93" remains compelling whereas "World Trade Center" I don't think has aged well. The chief problem is that whereas "United 93" is a film that presents us with the full scope of what the day was about in the confined setting of what happened on this flight, "World Trade Center" is much too narrow in its focus. The story of the two rescued Port Authority policemen is a great story about the day amidst all this tragedy but a full blown movie about just them has the sad effect of really reducing the magnitude of what happened that day. In the end, their trapped situation in the rubble and the effort to free them almost tends to play more like a big screen "Emergency" episode situation more. Stone *could* have broadened the scope a bit more and there are hints of what he could have done with the random policeman from Wisconsin coming out to the scene, and also the moment at the end where the families of these two survivors go past a bulletin board of all the missing people at the WTC but by this point its almost too little too late. In the end, the impact of the film just isn't in the same category of "United 93".
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I, Tonya (2017) 6 of 10
-I only saw this because I lived through the story and know it fairly well, and also because the 30 For 30 series produced a good documentary about it. In fact, it's BECAUSE there was a very good 30 For 30 documentary about this that you can only quote Nancy Kerrigan's "Why?" as to why this movie was made. It plays more like a satiric version of "30 For 30" and frankly all that did was show that there really wasn't much of a need to make this film except I suppose, "Hey, let's create a sure Oscar winning role for Allison Janey, they just LOVE these foul-mouthed spot-on characterizations of real people!" I might have been better off seeing this with an audience because then I might have laughed at it more than I did. You want to learn about Nancy-Tonya, watch the "30 For 30".
I will say that it is possible to not be sympathetic to Harding and at the same time acknowledge the point she makes in the film and also in the 30 For 30 about the corruption of skating judges in general. It took the 2002 Salt Lake City debacle to bring that out into the open and skating has never been a big deal with US audiences ever since.
-I only saw this because I lived through the story and know it fairly well, and also because the 30 For 30 series produced a good documentary about it. In fact, it's BECAUSE there was a very good 30 For 30 documentary about this that you can only quote Nancy Kerrigan's "Why?" as to why this movie was made. It plays more like a satiric version of "30 For 30" and frankly all that did was show that there really wasn't much of a need to make this film except I suppose, "Hey, let's create a sure Oscar winning role for Allison Janey, they just LOVE these foul-mouthed spot-on characterizations of real people!" I might have been better off seeing this with an audience because then I might have laughed at it more than I did. You want to learn about Nancy-Tonya, watch the "30 For 30".
I will say that it is possible to not be sympathetic to Harding and at the same time acknowledge the point she makes in the film and also in the 30 For 30 about the corruption of skating judges in general. It took the 2002 Salt Lake City debacle to bring that out into the open and skating has never been a big deal with US audiences ever since.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35758
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I agree with you entirely on the movie Eric (I mentioned the 30 for 30 in my review too!) though I think there are other factors as to why "skating hasn't been a big deal" in the US. I think it comes down to two issues myself:
1. The collective performance of the US singles skaters has been poor, the women most especially, since Sarah Hughes won the Gold in Salt Lake. In fact I think this last Olympics was the worst all around women's performance for the US altogether and I think that's the main contributor to flagging interest. We've done nothing in women's in the last 16 years while the media spent the last Olympics celebrating the open sexuality of an overhyped men's competitor who came in 10th. I think that's pretty much the reason. While certainly significant, I don't think the average US Olympic viewer even remembers the judging disaster from 2002 much less cares about it today.
2. Artistry is nearly dead in skating today and you have lots of "little girls doing jumps". Gone are the days of full grown women, pretty much, mixing artistry with jumps...now it's teenagers who have no sense of style pulling off jump to jump. There's a numbing sameness to it all, and it's killing the sport, not just from a US perspective.
1. The collective performance of the US singles skaters has been poor, the women most especially, since Sarah Hughes won the Gold in Salt Lake. In fact I think this last Olympics was the worst all around women's performance for the US altogether and I think that's the main contributor to flagging interest. We've done nothing in women's in the last 16 years while the media spent the last Olympics celebrating the open sexuality of an overhyped men's competitor who came in 10th. I think that's pretty much the reason. While certainly significant, I don't think the average US Olympic viewer even remembers the judging disaster from 2002 much less cares about it today.
2. Artistry is nearly dead in skating today and you have lots of "little girls doing jumps". Gone are the days of full grown women, pretty much, mixing artistry with jumps...now it's teenagers who have no sense of style pulling off jump to jump. There's a numbing sameness to it all, and it's killing the sport, not just from a US perspective.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Oh, I agree not many remember the scandal outright from 2002 but I think it was a trigger in declining interest in the immediate years following and once that started then the other factors you note, I'm sure had a lot to do with why its never come back at all to the hype levels it was in the 90s.
I once read a book about the history of skating on TV from Wide World of Sports in the 60s up through 2002. Jim McKay probably did more to help make it popular with TV audiences in terms of his commentary at events that boosted the profile of so many names, yet he privately hated the sport!
I once read a book about the history of skating on TV from Wide World of Sports in the 60s up through 2002. Jim McKay probably did more to help make it popular with TV audiences in terms of his commentary at events that boosted the profile of so many names, yet he privately hated the sport!