|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Beck-
Baseball and beer are appropriate topics of conversation, but not phalli.
Not even a little testicle talk? Gee, what a repressed family you've got. ;)
-mike
|
Jul 16, 2003
3:06 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Usted tiene gusto ciertamente de sus viejas películas (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Chrisp-
I have no reason behind my sudden turn for the Spanish. I just felt it necessary at the time.
I like a man who can follow his instincts. Especially when they make no sense whatsoever.
-mike
|
Jul 16, 2003
3:04 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Mike,
"Glad to hear it, oh daughter of mine. Did you see the CN Tower yet?"
I don't have discussions about towers with my dad. Baseball and beer are appropriate topics of conversation, but not phalli.
Wonk,
Becky
|
Jul 15, 2003
1:16 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Usted tiene gusto ciertamente de sus viejas películas (Reply to this comment)
by Simply_Crispy
The real question is why you bothered with the pidgin-Spanish in the first place? Planning a trip to Barcelona (which, in case you hadn't heard, is nowhere near Las Vegas)? Attempting to woo a young lady Spaniard? Trying to mask your Irishness by any means necessary? What gives?
I have no reason behind my sudden turn for the Spanish. I just felt it necessary at the time. And as much as I wish I was going to Barcelona, it is not to be. Alas.
Chris
|
Jul 15, 2003
9:25 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Usted tiene gusto ciertamente de sus viejas películas (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Chrisp-
You were quite close, given my pidgen-Spanish here. Nice try.
The real question is why you bothered with the pidgin-Spanish in the first place? Planning a trip to Barcelona (which, in case you hadn't heard, is nowhere near Las Vegas)? Attempting to woo a young lady Spaniard? Trying to mask your Irishness by any means necessary? What gives?
-miguel
|
Jul 15, 2003
8:56 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Nate-
Now, now - I likened the tone of your review to a bored teenager, not you.
Ok. But you did call this tactic "useless". Can I at least get mad at that?
-mike
|
Jul 15, 2003
8:53 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Beck-
My friends came up with some code that involved the CN Tower and self-serve gas stations,…
Is this more wonky-eye talk?
…but when I read the email asking if I'd seen the CN Tower, I thought, "Of course! It's enormous! I saw it on the flight in!"
Holy phallic-symbol double-entendres! Even Sex With Sue is blushing.
The Daily Show is on at 11, silly. I would never make that mistake.
You missed my point… ah, never mind. Jon Stewart Rulz!!!
I called home from my hotel room when you weren't there, but I used the code anyway! My mom wasn't even home, though, so I had to leave the message with my dad.
Something like this?:
"Hi Dad! He doesn't have a wonk… er… I mean… Can you please tape The Daily Show at 11:00?"
"Glad to hear it, oh daughter of mine. Did you see the CN Tower yet?"
"Yeah. It's huge! And brodgy"
[end scene]
-mike
|
Jul 15, 2003
8:50 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Usted tiene gusto ciertamente de sus viejas películas (Reply to this comment)
by Simply_Crispy
You certainly like your old films
This is one title I could never really get my head round. It's not a bad film, by I just found it impossible to get involved in it. Kinda like having sex with someone you're not really attracted to... you know you should be enjoying it and, hey, it's better than a kick in the teeth, but you just don't seem to get any pleasure from it.
Good write up anyway, you grey-haired old git you.
You were quite close, given my pidgen-Spanish here. Nice try.
|
Jul 15, 2003
6:05 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Mike,
I'd be worried that I would screw up the code.
I have been known to screw up codes. My friends came up with some code that involved the CN Tower and self-serve gas stations, but when I read the email asking if I'd seen the CN Tower, I thought, "Of course! It's enormous! I saw it on the flight in!"
Like, if my host didn't have a wonky eye, but I accidentally said, "Please tape The Daily show at 11:30," then mom would get the wrong idea.
The Daily Show is on at 11, silly. I would never make that mistake.
Which leaves one question: what would have happened if I had a wonky eye?
Just sympathized from a distance.
Would your mom fly up to Toronto to rescue you?
Nope.
Or just sympathize from a distance?
Didn't I just tell you that?
And now I'm trying to remember if I did ever overhear you ask your mom to tape a show. Did you?
Actually, I called home from my hotel room when you weren't there, but I used the code anyway! My mom wasn't even home, though, so I had to leave the message with my dad.
Wonk on,
Becky
|
Jul 14, 2003
12:49 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Beck-
Was it because you knew I'd be crazy and get on your nerves?
No. I didn't find that out until you got here. And then boy did I find that out! ;)
I had to call her and tell her that my flight got in, etc, and then say, "Oh, and could you tape that show for me?" If you had a wonky eye, I would give a show on the half hour (i.e. 3:30), but if there was no wonkiness, the show would start on the hour.
I'd be worried that I would screw up the code. Like, if my host didn't have a wonky eye, but I accidentally said, "Please tape The Daily show at 11:30," then mom would get the wrong idea. The wrong idea being that I was safe from wonky eye. Which leaves one question: what would have happened if I had a wonky eye? Would your mom fly up to Toronto to rescue you? Or just sympathize from a distance?
And now I'm trying to remember if I did ever overhear you ask your mom to tape a show. Did you?
-mike
|
Jul 14, 2003
6:18 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
All About Nate-
All About Eve was the standard for realism in the 50s… People were different then, and as a result, the acting of the time reflects that.
Right you are. But 1950 was [mike gets out his calculator] 53 years ago. A lot has changed since then, most notably cinematic acting styles (okay, other things of more note have changed, I'll concede that point). I just don't like putting myself back in a different era, in order to enjoy a film. If I enjoy it from my current perspective (as I did for the even older Trouble in Paradise, to take a recent example) then bully for the film. If not, then I'm going to say so in the review, without apologies.
But I will concede that All About Eve is an actor's movie more than anything else.
I'm starting to feel like Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men (another recent review; please excuse the pimpage). One down, ten more to go.
It did read like that, yes.
Wow, that's kind of disheartening. Does it help if I say, now, that I went in quite optimistically?
Not that I meant to attack you, but if someone were to say to me, This review is idiotic, I would take that very personally.
But you didn't say, "This review is idiotic". The worst you said was "normally you support your arguments much better than you have in this case," immediately after likening me to a bored teenager. Which is not nearly as bad.
Now, intellectual sparring is much, much different - and, in the end, it's the whole point of film criticism.
Which is pretty much the point of the Roundtable, from what I can tell. Which is why I'm so looking forward to that project.
Well, first I have to write something that you disagree with.
As you've already noted, it shouldn't be that long a wait for this to happen. We've been down that road many times before.
Second, I have to concede to being a "big fat idiot," which I don't do very often.
No, no, no. Your job is to argue that you're not a "big fat idiot". I'm the one making the accusations, here.
Third, didn't you already do this on my Matrix Reloaded review? ;)
To a degree. But you should've seen the first draft of some of those comments. The Naughty Word Censor was having a field day with all the insults I was tossing your way! ;)
As a side note, you didn't really think I was, in essence, calling you a "big fat idiot" with my challenges, did you?
Of course not. I've got a thicker skin that that.
-mike
|
Jul 14, 2003
6:13 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Mike,
for I knew why I was anxious to meet you. Care to guess?
Was it because you knew I'd be crazy and get on your nerves?
Pray tell, what was the word?
I had to call her and tell her that my flight got in, etc, and then say, "Oh, and could you tape that show for me?" If you had a wonky eye, I would give a show on the half hour (i.e. 3:30), but if there was no wonkiness, the show would start on the hour. Yes, I know I'm weird.
Cheers,
Becky
|
Jul 13, 2003
9:07 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Same old, same old (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Sue-
I take this to mean that you think I will somehow be shocked, or offended, or confused by said Feebles? We shall see.
Shocked? Probably. Offended? Quite likely. Confused? Most definitely. Good luck.
-mike
|
Jul 13, 2003
10:12 am PDT
|
|
Re: ------------ (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Jack-
I don't particularly like "All About Eve", but I look upon it much more favorably when comparing it to its infinite number of remakes and knockoffs
Was Glitter really a knock-off of Eve, or did you just throw that in there as an excuse to talk about Mariah's carriage?
As for the Crisp's Spanish, if I had to live under someone as gullible as Tony Blair, I'd go a little bit buggo, too (though, of course, this still wouldn't even remotely excuse a 4-star rave of Red Dragon).
I've given up trying to explain some of the things Chrisp does. When it comes to his latest shenanigans, I just shake my head, and think, "Él está loco."
-mike
|
Jul 13, 2003
10:09 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Beck-
so I pretended to myself that I was worried that you might have a wonky eye and that's why you were wearing the sunglasses in the photo.
I like it. You couldn't identify the source of the anxiety, so you made one up. Ingenious! I didn't have to resort to such tactics, for I knew why I was anxious to meet you. Care to guess?
I even came up with a code word for whether or not you had a wonky eye for when I called her from T.O.
Pray tell, what was the word? Was it "brodgy", or "freatraction", perchance?
To the masses: Mike does not have a wonky eye.
And the masses can now rest easy.
-mike
|
Jul 13, 2003
10:02 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Master Debater Nate-
But that's what I mean about you seeming to ignore the time in which the movie was made - that was the style. Everyone was hammy!
Hey, if I could scoop out my 2003 eyes and replace them with 1950 eyes, to enjoy Eve better, I would. But I can't. I can't just toss away my desires for realistic acting, not to mention stylish and purposeful dialogue, and intriguing cinematic imagery.
(Okay, I can overlook them sometimes. I just couldn't here.)
I bet you hate Bogart, too. Am I right?
No, I don't hate him. I just don't see him as the be-all and end-all of cynical anti-heroes.
Kudos to you for doing your research… Actually, it makes me like the movie even more (if such a thing were possible).
It makes me like the movie more, too. I just had more room for improvement than you did.
I just can't see them as separate. Not as far as the film's success is concerned, anyway.
But you must agree that the most important factor in this film's success is the quality of the actors? I'm not saying that the direction (which I found too pedestrian) and the script (which I found too verbose) weren't factors at all. Just less so.
I still can't understand how you'd find any of the speeches and dialogue boring or tedious. I was mesmerized through the entire thing.
I just think they needed a bit of judicious pruning. They all began mesmerizing, but wore out their welcomes after a while.
Honestly, your review struck me as an attempt to take on a classic
Do you think I went in looking for a beloved movie to tear apart? That's not the case at all. I was hoping to love Eve, precisely because it's a classic. I just found it didn't live up to its lofty reputation. That's all.
I agree. I'm guilty of this myself, if only because I don't want to offend people. But you, I'm not worried about offending you. I don't even think such a thing is possible.
Oh, it's possible. Just not in this realm. When you pick apart one of my reviews it's not a personal attack on me. And besides, you didn't come close to finding all of this piece's flaws. As the author, I should know. I put them there!
As sort of a quid pro quo, or maybe even just a show of solidarity, how about if I, on your next review, return the favour? You know, point out all the places where you're being a big fat idiot. Deal? ;)
-mike
|
Jul 13, 2003
9:57 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Same old, same old (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket,  in Movies
Mike,
You really should learn to broaden your horizons. Life ain't all Burt Lancaster movies, soccer matches and Mac and Cheese, you know?
Of course not. There's cookies, too.
In that case, you should also put Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Meet the Feebles on your rental queue.
Confessions is already there. Never really heard much about Feebles.
(Now I'm trying to picture the look on Sue's face when she watches Meet the Feebles. Might actually make the film's existence worthwhile, eh Nate?)
I take this to mean that you think I will somehow be shocked, or offended, or confused by said Feebles? We shall see.
Sue
|
Jul 12, 2003
11:48 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Non-Wonky Mike,
As punishment, I demand that you tell the complete wonky story, in all its gory detail, right here in this Comment Section. Now!
If you insist. Well, when I was going to visit you, I was, uncharacteristically, a nervous wreck. I wasn't even sure what I was anxious about, so I pretended to myself that I was worried that you might have a wonky eye and that's why you were wearing the sunglasses in the photo. My mom and I talked about it for hours, and I even came up with a code word for whether or not you had a wonky eye for when I called her from T.O. in case you were listening in.
To the masses: Mike does not have a wonky eye.
You better not be making any Radiohead cracks, here. Nate's already kinda angry. If he sees that, he might go over the deep end.
Just because I like their music doesn't mean I think Thom Yorke is hot. He's a funny looking little guy. Ed O'Brien on the other hand is a babe, especially in his Amnesty International t-shirts.
Kid B
|
Jul 12, 2003
1:07 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ......... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Marc-
I always hated this movie, and for no good reason really.
I find that hard to believe. I bet you have a number of good reasons rattling around that noggin of yours.
I think you summed up my thoughts pretty well, but I just had worse reaction to it.
I think, because I tried hard to isolate some of the wittier lines, and focus all my thoughts on Bette Davis, the film didn't come out too badly (3-stars, after all). But when I let all the crap in my peripheral vision make its way to centre stage, there's really not much to recommend here.
-mike
|
Jul 12, 2003
8:40 am PDT
|
|
Re: I have never seen (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Marsha-
I have never seen this film, and now, thanks to you, I will refuse to sit through it no matter how many times someone I know might beg me to.
Don't get me wrong: it's not completely devoid of quality. But it sure was a disappointment, to me at least.
I'll just tell them Mike said I don't have to watch it! How's that?
I said no such thing. But if you want to use my name as an excuse, by all means use away.
-mike
|
Jul 12, 2003
8:37 am PDT
|
|
Re: Same old, same old (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Sue-
As usual, no Burt, pre-1980, haven't seen it.
You really should learn to broaden your horizons. Life ain't all Burt Lancaster movies, soccer matches and Mac and Cheese, you know?
Now, of course, I will have to see it. Especially since Nate disagrees with you.
In that case, you should also put Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Meet the Feebles on your rental queue.
(Now I'm trying to picture the look on Sue's face when she watches Meet the Feebles. Might actually make the film's existence worthwhile, eh Nate?)
You're just not content to leave me in my happy little world of 90's rom/coms, are you?
No I am not. I will drag you kicking and screaming backwards in time, if I have to.
what the hell is with Crispy and the Spanish? it's freakin' me out
Beats the heck out of me. I think watching Red Dragon on an infinite loop has finally knocked his screws loose.
-miguel
|
Jul 12, 2003
8:35 am PDT
|
|
Re: He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Beck-
And it's so funny that you used it in a review because... well, it's too long of a story to tell in a comment section, but I'll tell you sometime.
Now you're being vague and secretive. As punishment, I demand that you tell the complete wonky story, in all its gory detail, right here in this Comment Section. Now!
Thom Yorke once almost punched a reporter for asking about his "wonky eye."
You better not be making any Radiohead cracks, here. Nate's already kinda angry. If he sees that, he might go over the deep end.
In my local supermarket in London, they had a sign that said, "If your trolley has a wonky wheel, put a tag on it and we will repair it for you," which I thought was one of the more adorable signs in the world.
Jeez. You got blinders on or something? I wrote 1666 words here. Why all the attention on this one?
Oh yeah, great review, but you knew that already.
Too little, too late. ;)
-mike (still not seeing what the wonky fuss is about)
|
Jul 12, 2003
8:31 am PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Taskmaster Nate-
[Baxter's grating overacting] is so clearly an intentional decision on the part of the filmmakers; she becomes grating to us before the characters in the film are totally aware of her darker side. Foreshadowing, ya know?
Yeah, I know. I just didn't like it. I think this kind of thing can be pulled off with a lot more subtlety than Baxter managed. At no point did I find her character resembling anything close to an actual human being. Which is the point, I know. She's an actor, all the time. But I still thought her all too hammy.
Make that "may not." His romantic interest in Eve is made perfectly clear in the scene when he exposes her.
Are you claiming that he "may not" be homosexual, or "may not" be closeted?
Like I said in the review, I found his ambiguous (some would say, "subtextual") sexuality refreshing. But, after doing a bit of research, I found a number of other sources that confirm his homosexuality. "The Big Queer Movie List" (http://www.angelfire.com/il/nova/queerfilms4.html) certainly thinks so (although they offer little in the form of evidence to support this). And Sam Staggs' book "All About All About Eve" (from which I unknowingly stole my review title!) claims that DeWitt is looking for a 'lavender marriage' with Eve (Mankiewicz himself confirmed that Eve was supposed to be a closeted lesbian).
The actors would have nothing to do without the brilliant screenplay, and you're forgetting that directors are present to direct the actors.
I know, I know. A movie can't exist without first being written. And it certainly helps if there's a good director around to direct the actors. But, seeing as this is a movie about actors, the contributions of the actors are most important. The other factors are secondary to the film's success.
You seem to be forgetting that the film is nearly fifty years old, and you're comparing it to the standards of modern cinema. Yeah, I know you wrote this: '"All About Eve" is a film of its own time. Which is probably why it didn't hit me as hard as it hit the audiences who saw it back in 1950', but that doesn't let you off the hook for completely framing your review from the (frankly useless) standpoint of a bored teenager.
I don't think I was playing the bored teenager, one whose attention span is too short to enjoy a film with ideas and (gasp!) talking! Here's what I said, regarding the long speeches:
"But I found myself tuning out as the words piled up. Mankiewicz never lets one explanation stand alone. He often adds two or three more, just in case the audience didn't get it the first time. I found this practice both annoying and tedious."
I think you might've read "I found myself tuning out", and then jumped to a conclusion before discovering why. I tuned out whenever I found that the same information, in the same speech, was conveyed several times over. Each speech, or conversation, begun with my interest firmly held. But after several repetitions, in several different guises, I felt like I was being beaten over the head. And it bothered me. Hope that clears things up.
I appreciate the opportunity to defend my words, Nate. Too often, in the vast sea of sycophancy that is the Eps Comment Section, controversial ideas (or ideas of any kind) aren't challenged. Thus, they lose some of their potency. Maybe I've strengthened my ideas here in your mind, and maybe I haven't. If the latter is true, then at least we had a little honest-to-goodness discourse. Nothing wrong with that, right?
-mike
|
Jul 12, 2003
8:23 am PDT
|
|
......... (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
I always hated this movie, and for no good reason really.
I think you summed up my thoughts pretty well, but I just had worse reaction to it.
Cheers!
|
Jul 11, 2003
8:25 pm PDT
|
|
I have never seen (Reply to this comment)
by katmar
this film, and now, thanks to you, I will refuse to sit through it no matter how many times someone I know might beg me to. I'll just tell them Mike said I don't have to watch it! How's that?
Thanks for the warning.
Marsha
|
Jul 11, 2003
8:17 pm PDT
|
|
Same old, same old (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Mike,
As usual, no Burt, pre-1980, haven't seen it. Regardless of reputation and all that. Now, of course, I will have to see it. Especially since Nate disagrees with you. You're just not content to leave me in my happy little world of 90's rom/coms, are you?
Your wonktasticality is dazzling -
Sue (what the hell is with Crispy and the Spanish? it's freakin' me out)
|
Jul 11, 2003
12:22 pm PDT
|
|
He's got a wonky eye! (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Mike,
I love the word "wonky!" And it's so funny that you used it in a review because... well, it's too long of a story to tell in a comment section, but I'll tell you sometime.
Thom Yorke once almost punched a reporter for asking about his "wonky eye."
In my local supermarket in London, they had a sign that said, "If your trolley has a wonky wheel, put a tag on it and we will repair it for you," which I thought was one of the more adorable signs in the world.
Wonktastically,
Becky
PS Oh yeah, great review, but you knew that already.
|
Jul 11, 2003
8:36 am PDT
|
|
Re: Usted tiene gusto ciertamente de sus viejas películas (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Chrisp-
Usted tiene gusto ciertamente de sus viejas películas. Éste es un título que podría nunca realmente conseguir mi cabeza redonda. No es una mala película, cerca yo acaba de encontrar imposible conseguir implicado en él. Un poco como tener sexo con alguien realmente le no le atraen... le conoce debe gozar de él y, hey, es mejor que un retroceso en los dientes, pero usted apenas no se parece conseguir ningún placer de él. Bueno prepare de todos modos, usted viejo git gris-haired usted.
I've seen Eve mostly in bits and pieces up until just recently, but now, after seeing it all the way through for the first time, I can understand how it would be hard to get your head around.
[there's a bit of wonky Spanish here that I can't muddle through]
You're right, it's better than a punch in the mouth. I obtained some pleasure from it, especially when Davis was spitting out the sharper bits of Mank's script. But overall, you're right, it's hard to enjoy. Especially when I've been told so often that I would enjoy it.
[at the end I think you call me an "old, gray-haired git", but I can't figure out why, or in what context]
Am I even close, with this?
-miguel
|
Jul 11, 2003
8:23 am PDT
|
|
Re: hee! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Jill-
Thanks a lot! You've had me saying this all day. "How very wonky." "That's rather wonky, Mom." "Really Ariel, stop being so wonky!"
It's been a day now since you read that, um, addictive word. Hopefully everything is wonky-dory by now.
Shock the wonky.
Wonky see, wonky do.
A million wonkies at a million typewriters for a million years will someday reproduce "Wonky".
You look like a wonky, and you smell like one too.
Can't. Stop. The. Wonky.
-mike
|
Jul 11, 2003
8:16 am PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Mike-
…and as I'm not the biggest fan of this film either, I agreed with almost everything you've stated.
Go take a look at the list of reviews. My 3-star piece is by far the lowest rating out there. There were a number of strong elements in the film, but it was surely far from perfect.
Boggles the mind, it does. Thanks for the kind words.
-mike
|
Jul 11, 2003
8:13 am PDT
|
|
|
|
