Last movie you saw?

[ZirconBlue]

Are we really gonna go there?

pg's comment came first.  He never bothered with King of the Hill because it looks just like Beavis and Butthead.

ZirconBlue's response that have very little similarity didn't mention anything about story.  I don't even see it as a valid retort, since they clearly do look similar, and that's all that was being discussed at the time.

You're aware that "looks" can have multiple meanings, right?  Since none of his stated dislikes for B&B were based on the appearance of the animation, I didn't think that "looks" was being used literally.

[pg1067]

I find it amusing that y'all are debating the intent behind my comment.

To refresh, I wrote the following:  "Beavis and Butthead were a bit amusing, but they crossed the 'more stupid than funny' line more often than not."

With that being said, King of the Hill looked like (i.e., was visually similar to) and was co-created by the same guy who created Beavis & Butthead, so I assumed that the content of KOTH would be similar to that of B&B and, for that reason, never gave KOTH a serious watch.  Perhaps, had I also mentioned that I knew the same guy created both shows, my comment would have been clearer.  While my assumption caused me to make a viewing decision, I always knew it might be an erroneous assumption, which is what y'all appear to be saying.

I think it's worth pointing out that I've never found much of anything funny in The Simpsons (and, for that reason, have never watched more than a handful of the 9,321 episodes), so that probably played into it as well, even though The Simpsons is unrelated.

[Orbert]

I knew what you meant all along, and find it amusing how many people called me out on misinterpreting what you meant.  Amusing indeed.

[El Barto]

I knew what you meant all along, and find it amusing how many people called me out on misinterpreting what you meant.  Amusing indeed.

I didn't call you out for misinterpreting what he said. I called you out for erroneously telling somebody else he misinterpreted what he said.

[Orbert]

ZirconBlue was pointing out that from a story standpoint, which was PG's problem with B&B

Incorrect, and pg has even said so.

pg was talking about how they look similar, not the story content.  They do look very similar.  Same animation style.

Correct.

I told Zircon that he misinterpreted pg's statement.  pg agreed with that.

I honestly don't give a fuck what anything thinks of any of this, but I do give a fuck that someone told me I was wrong when I was not, and everyone now seems to see that except you.

[faizoff]

Saw a bunch of movies the past week.

Hamilton (2020)

Having seen the show last year, and the soundtrack becoming my all time favorite of the 2010s it was great to see the performance again at home now with all the songs being so familiar. I must have seen it at least 10 times since release.
When I first saw the show I thought the choreography was kinda simple and not all that complicated, but after watching the movie like 10 times since release it definitely is a lot more complex and involved than it looks. It's a really good capture of the feel of the live show and I'm up for more musicals to get this kind of release rather than a movie being made.

Was also trying to catch up on several Blu-Ray purchases I've made through the years on great deals but never got round to watching them.
All are classics in their own right and each one of them were a great watching experience, they are from different decades so it was very interesting to go through each era's shooting style, acting, cinematography, editing choices and dialogue.

Listing in order of watching them.

Boyz N The Hood (1991)
Very impressive directorial debut for a 24 year old and then go on to be nominated for an Oscar. The movie has some ultimate 90s cliches in terms of music and sex scenes with the sax blazing out loud. Other than that the story is very touching and last 20 mins are definitely very heavy. Impressive debuts all round, first acting role for Ice Cube and Regina King too.

Stand By Me (1986)
For some reason I always assumed I had seen this movie, probably mixed it up with something like the Goonies. What an amazingly shot movie with gorgeous landscapes and it definitely had that Stephen King story feel as each scene unfolded.

The French Connection (1971)
My introduction to Gene Hackman was Superman II as a kid and I always think of him as a campy villain whenever I watch him in any movie. Seeing him as this asshole cop was quite a change of perception. The most outstanding thing about this movie that jumped out was the editing (won an Oscar for it). The music score is another highlight, really accentuated the entire movie. After learning the movie is based on real cops and a real case I figured the hamming up by Gene's character was based on his counterpart (it is) and it was toned down a lot from reality. The cop was a lot more obnoxious according to what I read. The car chase is legendary and really well done for a movie released in 1971. The behind the scenes with the director gives a very interesting insight on its execution. Funny how so much of it was improvised and not as planned as things are now when doing any kind of stunt. No permits taken, no blocking of pedestrians, they even mention how lucky they were that no one got killed and you could never do what they did nowadays. This whole movie I thought was amazing start to finish. I thought it was extremely tight and not a second felt wasted. Also interesting gave a snapshot of NYC in the 60s as someone who's only seen it more recently and was always curious about how it was prior to it getting cleaned up.

West Side Story (1961)
Having just seen Hamilton, I can see where Lin-Manuel drew inspiration from several aspects of this musical for In the Heights and Hamilton. Very unconventional story telling of two rival gangs duking it out in a musical sing song dance, great songs, amazing choreography and I found it very entertaining. I'm curious how the reboot with Spielberg will be. After watching it I then went down a rabbit hole reading up on Natalie Wood, what a tragic end to her life.

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Been meaning to see this movie for ages and it didn't disappoint. Surprisingly very quippy movie for a western I thought, the banter between the two leads was great and as usual it's interesting to read about the behind the scenes stuff as there was always so much drama behind the making on almost every aspect of the movie.

I'd rate all these movies 9/10 with The French Connection possibly a 10.


I have a lot more movies to catch up from my collection, probably watch something from the 50s with some Hitchcock or Bridge on the river Kwai next.

[Cool Chris]

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Been meaning to see this movie for ages and it didn't disappoint. Surprisingly very quippy movie for a western I thought, the banter between the two leads was great and as usual it's interesting to read about the behind the scenes stuff as there was always so much drama behind the making on almost every aspect of the movie.

I didn't like this film much until I saw it a second time and was able to appreciate what they were going for. Pales in comparison to The Sting in my book.

I have a lot more movies to catch up from my collection, probably watch something from the 50s with some Hitchcock or Bridge on the river Kwai next.

Highly recommend Kwai. Maybe a Top 10 movie of mine. Everything is top notch.

[El Barto]

I liked The French Connection, but didn't love it. The French Connection, as in the dude, was quite entertaining. More so than Popeye Doyle, I thought. The scene that really stuck out for me was the French dude and his sidekick eating a wonderful, lavish meal, taking their time and really savoring it, while Doyle and his sidekick stand out in the rain eating ( I think) cold pizza. A wonderful contrast that really summed up their differences.

William Friedken would later make To Live and Die In LA, which also features a spectacular car chase. He told his 2nd unit director that he'd only put a car chase in the movie if it could top TFC, and boy did it ever. They both had a wonderfully frantic edginess to them. Unlike, say, Bullit, you could actually sense the danger. It made you kind of nervous. The LA car chase covers a whole lot more ground, though, and more importantly, comes at a similarly frantic time in the movie. As I recall, Doyle was just being a cop chasing a bad guy. The two cops in LA were both in full blown panic mode already, to correspond to the franticness of the car chase. That really put it over the top.

I don't remember much about Boyz. What I recall was that it came out around the same time as Menace II Society, and obviously featured similar subject matter. Menace I remember thinking rather highly of. Boyz I've pretty much forgotten.

I also liked, but didn't love BCatSK. When I saw it as a kid I didn't appreciate the ending as much. As an adult I liked it a lot more. It seemed like they kind of sensed they had finally gotten in over their heads, but couldn't really accept it. Their was a pathos to their deaths as it just didn't seem like they understood it. Honestly, though, the movie mostly just suffers for not being any of the myriad Westerns I like a lot more. It's good, it's just not one of the great ones.

Highly recommend Kwai. Maybe a Top 10 movie of mine. Everything is top notch.

Not quite a top ten for me, but still one of my very favorites. Alec Guinness absolutely beats Colonel Saito into the ground. Just destroys him. It's both fun to watch him do it and yet you almost feel sorry for Saito's shame. And naturally I'm a big William Holden fan, so it's got that going for him. His attempt to get out of the mission really cracks me up, and yet once he's in he's all the way in.

[faizoff]

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Been meaning to see this movie for ages and it didn't disappoint. Surprisingly very quippy movie for a western I thought, the banter between the two leads was great and as usual it's interesting to read about the behind the scenes stuff as there was always so much drama behind the making on almost every aspect of the movie.

Pales in comparison to The Sting in my book.

Will have to track the movie down, I only came across the name when reading up on the movie and saw the same lead actors and director are involved in it. God knows how many more classic movies I've been missing out.

I liked The French Connection, but didn't love it. The French Connection, as in the dude, was quite entertaining. More so than Popeye Doyle, I thought. The scene that really stuck out for me was the French dude and his sidekick eating a wonderful, lavish meal, taking their time and really savoring it, while Doyle and his sidekick stand out in the rain eating ( I think) cold pizza. A wonderful contrast that really summed up their differences.

That scene is great, The Frenchman was indeed entertaining and seeing as how he's in the sequel I'm guessing the somewhat ambiguous ending of the first movie gets answered. The hand wave by the Frenchman after the subway tail is apparently a real thing that happened with the real cop.
Lot of great scenes in the movie. Have to watch more of Friedkin's movies.

I don't remember much about Boyz. What I recall was that it came out around the same time as Menace II Society, and obviously featured similar subject matter. Menace I remember thinking rather highly of. Boyz I've pretty much forgotten.

Haven't seen Menace II Society but heard more about it than Boyz.

Highly recommend Kwai. Maybe a Top 10 movie of mine. Everything is top notch.

Not quite a top ten for me, but still one of my very favorites

It's been on my watchlist forever and will probably watch it tonight.

[Stadler]

I liked The French Connection, but didn't love it. The French Connection, as in the dude, was quite entertaining. More so than Popeye Doyle, I thought. The scene that really stuck out for me was the French dude and his sidekick eating a wonderful, lavish meal, taking their time and really savoring it, while Doyle and his sidekick stand out in the rain eating ( I think) cold pizza. A wonderful contrast that really summed up their differences.

Don't you mean a "succulent Chinese meee-al!"?   

TFC is on my list to revisit (well, I don't know that I've seen the whole movie, only the 'chase').  BCatSK is as well, though I know I've seen that (and liked it, though I'm a sucker for Paul Newman). 

Watched Titanic again last night.   Sorry, but I love that movie.  Kate Winslet is gorgeous, the directing is top-notch (Titanic is like a 2CD Prog epic) and my heart breaks every time I hear the "Gentleman, it's been a privilege playing with you tonight."

Still bugs me though: "Titanic" instead of "the Titanic".  Brock Lovett is the worst offender.  Oh, and "Brock Lovett" is now my alias for checking into hotels (that, or Troy Bolton).   

[Orbert]

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Been meaning to see this movie for ages and it didn't disappoint. Surprisingly very quippy movie for a western I thought, the banter between the two leads was great and as usual it's interesting to read about the behind the scenes stuff as there was always so much drama behind the making on almost every aspect of the movie.

I didn't like this film much until I saw it a second time and was able to appreciate what they were going for. Pales in comparison to The Sting in my book.

I saw The Sting first, back when it came out, and tracked down Butch and Sundance later, but I really enjoy both of them.  I found it funny that Newman had the mustache in The Sting and Redford was clean-shaven because he was just a kid; then I saw Butch and Sundance, and Newman was clean-shaven and Redford had the mustache, even though he was The Sundance Kid.

But I think they're both brilliant films.  Very different, but both excellent.  I don't own a lot of movies on physical media, but these are two I made sure to get on Blu-ray.

[Indiscipline]

Watched Titanic again last night.   Sorry, but I love that movie.  Kate Winslet is gorgeous, the directing is top-notch (Titanic is like a 2CD Prog epic) and my heart breaks every time I hear the "Gentleman, it's been a privilege playing with you tonight."

Still bugs me though: "Titanic" instead of "the Titanic".  Brock Lovett is the worst offender.  Oh, and "Brock Lovett" is now my alias for checking into hotels (that, or Troy Bolton).   

William Friedken would later make To Live and Die In LA, which also features a spectacular car chase. He told his 2nd unit director that he'd only put a car chase in the movie if it could top TFC, and boy did it ever. They both had a wonderfully frantic edginess to them. Unlike, say, Bullit, you could actually sense the danger. It made you kind of nervous. The LA car chase covers a whole lot more ground, though, and more importantly, comes at a similarly frantic time in the movie. As I recall, Doyle was just being a cop chasing a bad guy. The two cops in LA were both in full blown panic mode already, to correspond to the franticness of the car chase. That really put it over the top.

I don't remember much about Boyz. What I recall was that it came out around the same time as Menace II Society, and obviously featured similar subject matter. Menace I remember thinking rather highly of. Boyz I've pretty much forgotten.

I also liked, but didn't love BCatSK. When I saw it as a kid I didn't appreciate the ending as much. As an adult I liked it a lot more. It seemed like they kind of sensed they had finally gotten in over their heads, but couldn't really accept it. Their was a pathos to their deaths as it just didn't seem like they understood it. Honestly, though, the movie mostly just suffers for not being any of the myriad Westerns I like a lot more. It's good, it's just not one of the great ones.

Yes. IMO the best actress of her generation, and it's not even close.

[faizoff]

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Been meaning to see this movie for ages and it didn't disappoint. Surprisingly very quippy movie for a western I thought, the banter between the two leads was great and as usual it's interesting to read about the behind the scenes stuff as there was always so much drama behind the making on almost every aspect of the movie.

I didn't like this film much until I saw it a second time and was able to appreciate what they were going for. Pales in comparison to The Sting in my book.

I don't own a lot of movies on physical media, but these are two I made sure to get on Blu-ray.

The BCATSK has a weird bluray transfer, in reading the review on blu-ray.com, they mention that it's one of the rare cases where they prefer the DVD look of the movie to the HD version. I didn't mind it that much to be honest. When watching older movies you tend to get an idea of a good transfer to HD, West Side Story had an amazing crisp transfer as did several other older movies. There is apparently a 4k version out there but only available to purchase on digital outlets.

[El Barto]

Watched Titanic again last night.   Sorry, but I love that movie.  Kate Winslet is gorgeous, the directing is top-notch (Titanic is like a 2CD Prog epic) and my heart breaks every time I hear the "Gentleman, it's been a privilege playing with you tonight."

Still bugs me though: "Titanic" instead of "the Titanic".  Brock Lovett is the worst offender.  Oh, and "Brock Lovett" is now my alias for checking into hotels (that, or Troy Bolton).

The best thing about Titanic is the sound. One of the best uses of surround sound I've come across. All of the hull popping going on as part of the ambiance really puts you in the bowels of the ship. Winslet is certainly the next best part. Unfortunately, her whole presence in the film is what drags it down for me. I found it to be an excellent disaster movie and a terrible love story. Mostly because there was just too much of the latter. Given the attention to detail Cameron put into it I'd love to see an edit that focuses more on the ship sinking. I keep expecting somebody to produce a fan edit that just lops out most of the love story, but it hasn't happened yet.

[MirrorMask]

I agree with that, the historical movie Titanic was absolutely wonderful, but the romantic movie Titanic was average.

I remember watching it on the 100th anniversary of the sinking.

[Stadler]

Watched Titanic again last night.   Sorry, but I love that movie.  Kate Winslet is gorgeous, the directing is top-notch (Titanic is like a 2CD Prog epic) and my heart breaks every time I hear the "Gentleman, it's been a privilege playing with you tonight."

Still bugs me though: "Titanic" instead of "the Titanic".  Brock Lovett is the worst offender.  Oh, and "Brock Lovett" is now my alias for checking into hotels (that, or Troy Bolton).

The best thing about Titanic is the sound. One of the best uses of surround sound I've come across. All of the hull popping going on as part of the ambiance really puts you in the bowels of the ship. Winslet is certainly the next best part. Unfortunately, her whole presence in the film is what drags it down for me. I found it to be an excellent disaster movie and a terrible love story. Mostly because there was just too much of the latter. Given the attention to detail Cameron put into it I'd love to see an edit that focuses more on the ship sinking. I keep expecting somebody to produce a fan edit that just lops out most of the love story, but it hasn't happened yet.

HAHAHA; Titanic is my daughter's favorite movie.   So my 12-year-old step son said "E, do you want to watch Titanic with me" and she thought, wow this is so cute and a great bonding moment!    They watched it, and about an hour later she walks back in and says "that was fun".  I asked why so quick, and "M" had fast-forwarded through every part that wasn't ship/sinking/water related. 

I didn't mind the love story so much; I hated the scenes on the ship in the present day.   Bill Paxton was not his best, the cliche'd social-outcast but technological genius guy (the dude with the beard) was annoying AF, and the quippy, alert Rose was... I don't know.  I just didn't like her ("did we do it?" har har har).   I know you needed the character for the whole conceit to work, but she was annoying. 

Fun fact (from IMDB):  all the scenes set in 1912 last about two hours and 40 minutes, the exact time experts say it took for Titanic to sink.  Also, the striking of the iceberg was supposedly in real time as well. 

[MirrorMask]

The striking of the iceber was a masterful scene. I consider it on par with the fight of Gandalf with the Balrog in The Fellowship of the Ring: in both cases you know what's gonna happen, but you're so invested in the scene and the tension, that you hope for an opposite outcome.

[faizoff]

As with anything James Cameron I guess, the extras on the disc are amazing, there's like an hour worth of deleted/extended scenes. There's a documentary that is an update on what they initially postulated regarding as to how the ship broke and sank, I think there is an animation of that included. Either way you can see Cameron's obsessiveness kick in once he starts talking about the dive and expedition. Guy is a maniac for sure.

[pg1067]

Watched Titanic again last night.   Sorry, but I love that movie.

You and me both.  I watched it a few months back for the first time in a while, and it prompted me to do a bunch of reading about the actual incident.  It also prompted me to watch Titanic: Blood and Steel on Netflix or Amazon Prime.

The "love story" proper in the movie is really dumb.  Even if one accepts that a young, affluent girl on the voyage might become infatuated with a person like Jack, the notion that she would have held onto those feelings through another 80 years, after getting married and having kids and grandkids is just absurd.  The ending scene is a bit ambiguous, but one interpretation is that Rose has died in her sleep and is now in a heaven that apparently exists on Titanic with all of the folks who died, and apparently WITHOUT her deceased husband and other family members who predeceased her.  Really?  However, there was enough to Rose and Jack's "relationship" that wasn't directly a "love story" that made for interesting background to what was happening.

Possible fun fact:  There's a deleted scene (among the MANY, as mentioned by faizoff) in which the other folks on the present day boat find Rose as she's about to drop the necklace.  They initially think she's intending to jump and she then produces the necklace, and they try to convince her not to drop it.  She does and explains herself and they sort of shrug it off (except for the beard guy if I recall correctly).  Monumentally dumb scene.

Another possible fun fact:  Supposedly, six survivors were still alive when the movie premiered, and at least two are known to have seen and enjoyed the movie.

[Stadler]

I'm not arguing with you, just my take...

I think the one thing that sort of blunts the charge of "dumb" is that she's 17 and doesn't know different.  She was for all intents and purposes groomed to be Cal's eye candy, and Jack opens something else up (no pun intended).  We already know that she's better read than her peers (the Freud reference at dinner; the awareness of the new wave of painters, Monet and Picasso). You'll note in the pictures - which at first I thought were dumb, but if you assume that she knows she's going to die there, it makes more sense - she's on a horse - riding normal - in front of roller coasters.  That's a direct result of the conversation on deck where he shows her his drawings for the first time; he talks about being on Santa Monica pier and riding the coasters till he pukes, and they talk about riding horses and she says "teach me?" or something like that.   I think that all that came after is a direct result of meeting Jack, and it gives her the courage to remain under the hood on the dock in NY when Cal goes looking for her.  We don't know about her husband and children, only the grand daughter, and I think that's on purpose; any depth there undermines her dedication to the promise she made Jack to "never let go".  She let's go of a lot - Jack's physical body, the Heart itself (at the end), her husband - but never lets go of what Jack caused to blossom within her. 

(And we do not know whether her child is in fact Jack's or the husband!)

[pg1067]

I'm not arguing with you, just my take...

I think the one thing that sort of blunts the charge of "dumb" is that she's 17 and doesn't know different.  She was for all intents and purposes groomed to be Cal's eye candy, and Jack opens something else up (no pun intended).  We already know that she's better read than her peers (the Freud reference at dinner; the awareness of the new wave of painters, Monet and Picasso). You'll note in the pictures - which at first I thought were dumb, but if you assume that she knows she's going to die there, it makes more sense - she's on a horse - riding normal - in front of roller coasters.  That's a direct result of the conversation on deck where he shows her his drawings for the first time; he talks about being on Santa Monica pier and riding the coasters till he pukes, and they talk about riding horses and she says "teach me?" or something like that.   I think that all that came after is a direct result of meeting Jack, and it gives her the courage to remain under the hood on the dock in NY when Cal goes looking for her.  We don't know about her husband and children, only the grand daughter, and I think that's on purpose; any depth there undermines her dedication to the promise she made Jack to "never let go".  She let's go of a lot - Jack's physical body, the Heart itself (at the end), her husband - but never lets go of what Jack caused to blossom within her. 

(And we do not know whether her child is in fact Jack's or the husband!)

Those are all valid points, although didn't present day Rose refer to "your grandfather" when speaking with her granddaughter in a way that implied that the granddaughter knew her grandfather?  I suppose she could have had a kid who wasn't the granddaughter's grandfather, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

My use of "dumb" was probably too strong.  I think the notion of her having a rebellious fling and subsequent hiding from Cal and her mother certainly makes sense.  It's the notion that, in only three days, this rebellious fling turned into an all-encompassing love that lasted through time and death is eye roll inducing.  Mind you, I absolutely love the movie, so I'm nit picking.

[El Barto]

I'm not arguing with you, just my take...

I think the one thing that sort of blunts the charge of "dumb" is that she's 17 and doesn't know different.  She was for all intents and purposes groomed to be Cal's eye candy, and Jack opens something else up (no pun intended).  We already know that she's better read than her peers (the Freud reference at dinner; the awareness of the new wave of painters, Monet and Picasso). You'll note in the pictures - which at first I thought were dumb, but if you assume that she knows she's going to die there, it makes more sense - she's on a horse - riding normal - in front of roller coasters.  That's a direct result of the conversation on deck where he shows her his drawings for the first time; he talks about being on Santa Monica pier and riding the coasters till he pukes, and they talk about riding horses and she says "teach me?" or something like that.   I think that all that came after is a direct result of meeting Jack, and it gives her the courage to remain under the hood on the dock in NY when Cal goes looking for her.  We don't know about her husband and children, only the grand daughter, and I think that's on purpose; any depth there undermines her dedication to the promise she made Jack to "never let go".  She let's go of a lot - Jack's physical body, the Heart itself (at the end), her husband - but never lets go of what Jack caused to blossom within her. 

(And we do not know whether her child is in fact Jack's or the husband!)

Normally whenever Titanic comes up I post the most hysterically batshit insane movie review I've ever seen. This time I decided not to, but since we're now dealing with a character analysis of Rose it looks like I should have. From The Christian Spotlight on Cienma:

Hollywood lost at sea, or the Titanic sinks again

review by guest, Elizabeth Farah of WorldNetDaily, reprinted with permission

I didn’t want to write this article. I resisted, but now that “Titanic” has become the top grossing film of all time—in the U.S. and the world, I feel compelled. Surpassing “Star Wars,” “Titanic” has taken in some $1 billion internationally and $465 million domestically. Besides its dollar achievements, “Titanic” has received 15 Academy Award nominations and, from what I can tell, nearly universal acclaim—but not in our household.

This is not only a bad movie, it’s a fundamentally immoral one—deceptive, manipulative, offensive.

This is not only a bad movie, it’s a fundamentally immoral one—deceptive, manipulative, offensive. A monument to the moral destitution of our society. Last night I watched a reporter interview a psychologist as to the meaning of the movie’s success. I learned “Titanic” has achieved its extraordinary popularity because the American people are looking for stories about the meaning of life. Well, America, if you found “Titanic” satisfies this quest, our country is in a great deal of trouble. The psychologist closed saying that “movies are a reflection of what’s going on in our culture.” I agree. Boy, do I agree. One only has to study the American people’s response to the scandals and crimes of the current administration for confirmation of this fact.

Ask yourself if the stunning superficial beauty of this film obscured its underlying ugliness.

For those of you who have already seen the movie—and loved it, read on. Ask yourself if the stunning superficial beauty of this film obscured its underlying ugliness. For those of you who haven’t seen it, ask yourself if a movie which upholds the values “Titanic” does, can be a great movie despite its moral bankruptcy. The film’s success, a hundred years ago, would have elicited a nationwide uproar concerning the relationship of art to morality. (Can any artistic achievement which glorifies immorality be “great?”) Not in today’s America.

So what’s wrong with “Titanic”? Gee, where do I begin? For starters, the “heroine” of “Titanic,” Rose, is a self-absorbed, spoiled aristocrat. She takes the fateful journey with her mother and wealthy fiancee, Cal, who presents her with a priceless diamond necklace during the voyage. She is having second thoughts about her engagement. You see, she doesn’t love the arrogant, pretentious Cal—she is marrying him for his money (at her mother’s urging). Rose’s misgivings predictably have nothing to do with a guilty conscience at her deception.

Let me pause to reflect on the general theme of the characterizations the screenwriters developed. There is a simple formula: All wealthy people are boorish, overbearing, dishonest, selfish, pretentious, and greedy—some are evil. All people of limited means are genuine, loving, selfless, honorable and generous. This simplistic and shallow (not to mention untrue) way of portraying the movie’s characters is truly sophomoric. But apparently the general public cannot see the injustice and inaccuracy of this propaganda. Can it be that the dumbing down of America, and the left’s tactic of fomenting class envy has been so successful that they actually agree with the manipulators who produced this movie? I shudder.

Back to our “heroine.” She’s unfulfilled by her life. Her intended doesn’t appreciate her Picassos. She doesn’t like cocktail party chitchat. She’s misunderstood. So, she does what anyone in her situation would do. She makes a half-hearted attempt to kill herself by jumping overboard. During the botched suicide try, she meets the “hero,” a young struggling artist who won his third-class ticket on the Titanic in a poker game. How does he make his living? Selling his third-rate sketches for ten cents each. As you can guess, using the formula outlined above, Jack is genuine, loving, selfless and honorable. (Just ignore his seduction of another man’s future wife.) He pursues Rose during the next few days finally convincing her to go below decks—where the poor (good) people are. Rose has a wonderful time at a raucous party.

Stop the tape. Rose, an engaged woman, deceives her fiancé, and goes with another man to a party—where they kiss. How courageous. Cal’s assistant witnesses her moral lapse and reports back to the boss. The following morning, Cal has the audacity to be angry at Rose! He… tells Rose that no wife of his is going to act this way. To me, this would be an understandable reaction. If the genders were reversed, the writers would have portrayed the offended female as righteously indignant. But he is a rich, white male—thus, we are encouraged to despise his actions and sympathize with Rose instead.

Rose has decided not to go through with the marriage—she loves Jack. What would a heroine do in this circumstance? She could go to her fiancé, explain she doesn’t love him and call off the wedding. Since the 500 wedding invitations have gone out, he is paying for her transit, and he will obviously be humiliated by her breaking off the engagement, she could delay a public display of affection for Jack until after their arrival in America. Or she could ask Jack, a man she just met, to draw her naked in her fiancé’s sitting room. She could wear the fabulous diamond—a gift of her fiancé. Then she could leave that picture, along with the diamond and a cruel note in the fiancé’s safe. Next she could go off with Jack and have sex in the back seat of her fiancé’s car in the hold of the ship. Hmm. This is a difficult decision. What would a heroine do? Since the fiancé is a rich, white male—she does the latter.


Every one of my daughters’ friends has seen “Titanic.” Of course my kids can’t figure out why I won’t let them see this trash. (Another emergency family round-table discussion.) Courage to do the right thing though difficult is a necessary quality of all heroes. Sins do not become virtues because those whom you sin against are pompous. You cannot be a hero if you are fundamentally dishonest and cruel. Heroes can sin, but they must atone for those sins to remain a hero. (For the record, I have sinned many times, but I was never a hero when I did.) Filmmakers have other options when dealing with a less than virtuous “hero.” The tone of the movie can indict the immorality of the “hero.” Other characters of integrity can denounce sinful behavior. In a sadistic twist the only persons appalled at Rose’s immorality are the villains! Compare “Titanic” to “Gone With the Wind,” “An Affair to Remember” and “Casablanca”—forget it.

To the secularist, life is short—get what you want—when you want it, and in what ever way necessary. Our heros fit into the latter category.

“Titanic” reminds me of the distinctions between people of faith and secularists. While all agree that death is inevitable and very often unexpected the religious and secularists do not agree on the behavior life’s fragility should promote. Those of faith, know they may meet their Maker, at any moment, at which time they will account for their sins. Their fear and deep love for God inspires them in their constant struggle for righteousness. To the secularist, life is short—get what you want—when you want it, and in what ever way necessary. Our heros fit into the latter category.

Before I get to the most insulting scene in this movie, I’ll regale you with a few more choice excerpts. In one scene Rose humiliates her dining partners (including her mother) by self-righteously concluding that the Titanic represented a phallic symbol to one of the guests at the table. (We were supposed to find her terribly sophisticated and enlightened for her time.) Rude, crude behavior is never sophisticated. Of course, when Rose uses a certain four-letter word and the accompanying hand gesture in another scene, we are again supposed to admire her.

As the Titanic is sinking, we are treated to the heroism and cowardice of the passengers. A mother holding an infant asks Captain Edward Smith what she should do. We are stunned to see him callously turn away from her without any offer of help—later we see them frozen in the Atlantic. In reality, the captain went down with the ship, and in one survivor’s account, Smith, bobbing in the freezing water yells out encouragements to those hanging on to an overturned lifeboat. He never asks to be taken aboard.

One of the most inspiring true stories of the Titanic is that of Margaret Brown.

One of the most inspiring true stories of the Titanic is that of Margaret Brown. You’ve heard of the unsinkable Molly Brown. In real life, Margaret was a survivor in one of the lifeboats. A sailor refused her command to turn around and pick up survivors dying in the water. He threatened her, but she forced him to go back. In the movie—she shuts up.

In the movie, the lower decks are locked behind a floor-to-ceiling gate. The ships crew heartlessly refuses to unlock the gates—condemning those trapped to a certain death. The truth? The gates on the Titanic were short enough to be climbed over—even if they were locked. It is true that far more lower class passengers died than the wealthy, but not for this reason. (On that note I will mention that the tales of courage exhibited by the “upper-class”—as well as by others related in first-hand accounts are truly inspiring—I just don’t have space to recount them.)

How does our “heroine” behave? You be the judge. Jack and the evil fiancé persuade Rose to get into a lifeboat. Lifeboats are scarce. There are only enough for about half the passengers. She takes a seat coveted by hundreds of other passengers—including other women and many children. Then, at the last moment, when it’s too late for anyone else to claim it, she hurls herself back into the ship to find her true love. The fact is she is responsible for one other passenger’s death—the one who could have taken her place. How are we supposed to interpret this act? “Oh, how romantic, she’d rather die than leave her one true love.” As we see later, Jack dies as a direct result of her recapitulation—but our little Rose survives.

As a matter of fact, Rose lives into her 100s. We experience the story of the Titanic though her words as she recounts the events to her granddaughter and the crew of the salvage ship. Ironically, they are searching for the very diamond which Rose wore in the portrait created by her lost love. You see, the diamond went down with the ship along with Rose—as far as Cal and his family know. Of course the insurance company suffered a tremendous loss when the claim was submitted.

But wait. We know the diamond was in Cal’s jacket, the jacket he offered to the shivering Rose. What gives? Did she lose the diamond while swimming in the Atlantic? No, in the final scene of the movie we discover the 100-year-old Rose has kept the diamond all these years! For those of you who don’t get it—our “heroine” stole the diamond! She is a thief! Does she feel remorse, regret? No!

When, oh when, did thievery achieve the moral equivalence of valor?

This little old lady stands up on a railing as she did while contemplating suicide 80 years ago, and throws the necklace overboard—instead of herself! To the moviegoers and no doubt the producers of this movie, this act was the final crowning virtuous achievement in the life of this courageous woman. When, oh when, did thievery achieve the moral equivalence of valor? Was the family of her fiancé so evil that they deserved this? Were the owners of the insurance company evil, greedy, white males? Probably, therefore, their loss is justifiable. (To the knee-jerk liberals out there, what could the proceeds from selling a diamond worth perhaps 10’s or 100’s of millions of dollars do for “the children”?)

And that, kind readers, is the story of the Titanic. Yes, they may have gotten the number of portholes right. The chandeliers, woodwork and china patterns may have been “perfect.” But the true story—the one involving people, faith, truth, justice, honesty, courage, loyalty, etc. went down with the Titanic this time. Yes, movies do reflect the culture but the culture of a society is influenced by its art. So many millions have seen this movie—they have sub-consciously absorbed the moral relativism of the producers. Millions of children, in their innocence, have learned what kind of character a heroine embodies. The future of America will someday be in their hands.

[Indiscipline]

 

I would love to go to see a movie with this lady.

[MirrorMask]

The "love story" proper in the movie is really dumb.  Even if one accepts that a young, affluent girl on the voyage might become infatuated with a person like Jack, the notion that she would have held onto those feelings through another 80 years, after getting married and having kids and grandkids is just absurd.

Completely agree. It's like she lived the life Jack wanted her to life, and that she married not out of love, but just to keep the promise to Jack to have a family. Imagine what it was like for the other guy, being essentially cuckholded from beyond the watery grave and being just a rebound guy that gave her children just because Jack wanted her to have a life.

[Stadler]

It's over-the-top, to be certain, but there ARE elements of truth in that review.  We ARE supposed to feel the class distinctions she points out.  We ARE supposed to take the appropriate sides in this. 

Now, I don't think all the judgment she exhibits is accurate - I think there's a slightly different message with Rose going below decks, for example - but there were easily three times when I was reading that where she wrote something to the effect of "and we're supposed to think" and that's exactly what I DID think.

And she's right; we are an exceedingly insecure nation, looking not for "the meaning of life", but rather, A meaning of life that fits our world view, whether it's right or not (a subtle, but important, distinction).   

[El Barto]

It's over-the-top, to be certain, but there ARE elements of truth in that review.  We ARE supposed to feel the class distinctions she points out.  We ARE supposed to take the appropriate sides in this. 

Now, I don't think all the judgment she exhibits is accurate - I think there's a slightly different message with Rose going below decks, for example - but there were easily three times when I was reading that where she wrote something to the effect of "and we're supposed to think" and that's exactly what I DID think.

Color me surprised! 

Of course we are supposed to see the class distinctions she points out, but so what? That's what movie-makers do. They wrap their stories in aspects of culture. She's not pissed off because he highlighted a class distinction. She's pissed off because she didn't like what it pointed out. Would she have felt the same way about the movie if he'd shown the steerage class pickpocketing the nobility or burglarizing their suites while these fine, upstanding sirs and madams were all being kind and decent to one another? Seems to me an equally plausible way to portray the classes. In reality there are almost certainly elements of both taking place aboard the boat. She just didn't like that her team were the bad guys this time around. Send her to see Menace II Society. Her team prevails in that one.

Moreover, her objection to the class discrepancies can't outweigh their respective behaviors. Rose is supposed to accept her lot in life? Marry this guy she doesn't like because it'll be financially beneficial to her mom? Kowtow when Cal belts her one because she had it coming? From her Christian point of view that's almost certainly what she believes. For the rest of us that have moved out of the dark ages I think we can all agree that Rose had some extenuating circumstances going on that warranted some sympathy. In most movies we're asked to take sides. In this particular movie I side with Rose. That doesn't make me or the movie immoral. If Cal and her mom were worth a fuck and she was just being flighty I'd be just as apt to take their side.

And she's right; we are an exceedingly insecure nation, looking not for "the meaning of life", but rather, A meaning of life that fits our world view, whether it's right or not (a subtle, but important, distinction).

Almost certainly grist for another thread, but what else are we supposed to do? The only meaning of life we're ever going to find is going to be specific to ourselves. I figured it out years ago: Shit happens and then you die. It's really that simple. I doubt that works for most people, though, so they can figure out their own. Frankly, if somebody were to figure out a meaning of life that didn't comport with their own values and behaviors, and then change to meet that new understanding, I'd really have to question their sanity.

[pg1067]

I would love to go to see a movie with this lady.

Holy crap!  Right?!

It's like she lived the life Jack wanted her to life, and that she married not out of love, but just to keep the promise to Jack to have a family. Imagine what it was like for the other guy, being essentially cuckholded from beyond the watery grave and being just a rebound guy that gave her children just because Jack wanted her to have a life.

I smell a sequel.  "New from James Cameron:  'Rose'"!

It's over-the-top, to be certain, but there ARE elements of truth in that review.

Well...sure...there were probably elements of truth in Ted Kaczynski's manifesto too....

"Rose, an engaged woman, deceives her fiancé, and goes with another man to a party—where they kiss. How courageous.  Cal’s assistant witnesses her moral lapse and reports back to the boss.  The following morning, Cal has the audacity to be angry at Rose!  He… tells Rose that no wife of his is going to act this way.  To me, this would be an understandable reaction."

While the author completely omits any mention of it, that scene included Cal assaulting and battering Rose and all but telling Rose that she is his property, but that's "an understandable reaction" for this woman.  It's not "understandable" because, yeah, that's how things were in the early 1910s (something which pretty much anyone who saw the movie understands).  No, she makes it pretty clear that she thinks it's an acceptable for a man to do to a child just because he happens to be engaged to her.

The biggest flaw in that review is that she doesn't understand that, just because someone is a protagonist doesn't mean he or she is a "hero(ine)."

[Stadler]

I get it, I get it.   I'm not arguing with either one of you.   I thought I was clear that I wasn't on board with her judgments.  That doesn't change that we're supposed to think a certain way when watching it, and maybe it's healthy, not batshit crazy, to assess that and account for that when watching it.   

(I do happen, though, to think that the tropes in Titanic are far more common than not; people identify with the underdog, especially against the "rich douchebag".)

As for this:

Almost certainly grist for another thread, but what else are we supposed to do? The only meaning of life we're ever going to find is going to be specific to ourselves. I figured it out years ago: Shit happens and then you die. It's really that simple. I doubt that works for most people, though, so they can figure out their own. Frankly, if somebody were to figure out a meaning of life that didn't comport with their own values and behaviors, and then change to meet that new understanding, I'd really have to question their sanity.

I was going for something different; I mean something more proactive the other way.  It's a process; by your "figuring out", I'm sure you spent time assessing your values and behaviors first, and whatever world view you adopted, it surely meshed with the way the world works generally (shit DOES, objectively, happen, and we DO, objectively, die.  All of us.)   It's not unreasonable to ask for a little critical thinking and honesty when one is assessing their own self.

Sorry; back to the movie thread.  I just thought it was interesting that you COULD look at it a totally different way.

[MirrorMask]

The Lion King.

The latest one, the "live action" one.... not the original because, gasp  I never saw it.

It was somehow fun to finally watch this movie and see the things I knew play out.  "They made Scar look older and more worn down". "Ah, so it happens during a stampede? I thought Scar would throw him down Pride Rock". "Ah, now I remember them, the two comic reliefs".

Wasn't there in the original the face of Mufasa in the stars? or it's something I misremember from whatever image I might have seen online?

[Cool Chris]

BCatSK had me thinking for a bit. It is the cinematic acronym equivalent to ItCotCK.

[faizoff]

Not sure where I stashed my Kwai blu-ray lol, so decided to watch two random movies that coincidentally had similar themes. Both spy thrillers but different in almost every other way.

Atomic Blonde (2017)
8/10
The movie has some really fun and exciting fights. I'm usually not too keen on hand to hand combats or even gun fights, but this movie did them very well. They were fun to watch and used quite sparingly too. I've read everyone knocking on the story of this movie being its weak point being so convoluted, I thrive on convoluted stories so it was right up my alley. I didn't know it was based on a graphic novel and there is a sequel planned. If they have the same crew I wouldn't mind at all. It's been dubbed the female John Wick, which I kinda disagree. The John Wick movies are total mayhem from the get-go with a somewhat loose story but I get the comparisons.

Three Days of the Condor (1975)
9/10

This movie in many ways feels like a blueprint that the Bourne movies and many other spy thrillers have used. Prior to watching I had no idea what the movie was about at all. It came as a double feature with The President's Men Blu-ray set which I wanted to get, so Condor was just a bonus for me. I loved how the story unfolded and you learn what's going on just the Condor is. The action at times shows its age and of course all that technology! But overall I found it entertaining and a well structured movie.

I might swing for more movies set in the 70s if I don't find where I put the Kwai Bluray, probably start Chinatown next.

[KevShmev]

This will no doubt result in a "I can't believe you had never seen this movie before!" post from Joe , but I finally saw Rudy last night.

Really, really good.  The ending was predictable, but damn inspiring.

[King Postwhore]

I wilm not be the only one to say, "SAAAYY WHHAAATT?"

[El Barto]

Three Days of the Condor (1975)
9/10

This movie in many ways feels like a blueprint that the Bourne movies and many other spy thrillers have used. Prior to watching I had no idea what the movie was about at all. It came as a double feature with The President's Men Blu-ray set which I wanted to get, so Condor was just a bonus for me. I loved how the story unfolded and you learn what's going on just the Condor is. The action at times shows its age and of course all that technology! But overall I found it entertaining and a well structured movie.

I might swing for more movies set in the 70s if I don't find where I put the Kwai Bluray, probably start Chinatown next.

I loved Three Days of the Condor. I loved how he was simultaneously the good guy on the run from rogue spooks, and the bad guy taking Faye Dunaway hostage out of sheer desperation. Movies with normal people forced into extreme measures, beyond their ability to cope really work for me.

It's not the 70s, but if you haven't seen it, North by Northwest has the same sort of feel to it. Poor Cary Grant has no clue who's trying to kill him, and they're coming from all different angles.

Also, Burt Lancaster showed up in a lot of thrillers in the sixties and seventies. Seven Days in May was fantastic, but just looking at his filmography you find plenty of good spy/political thrillers from that era.

[faizoff]

It's not the 70s, but if you haven't seen it, North by Northwest has the same sort of feel to it. Poor Cary Grant has no clue who's trying to kill him, and they're coming from all different angles.

I have a collection of 15 movies of Hitchcock and North by Northwest is included in it. I haven't seen all the movies in that set yet and will check out this next.