Kissing Jessica Stein
Jon Ridge
it and I have to say it's one of the most intelligent and funny
romantic comedies I've ever seen.
It's sexy, too. I loved the bar scene where Helen puts her hand
on Jessica's leg, and ends up saying "You really should have
that looked at." But, why the fuck did we have to spend all
that time with them getting together and moving in, just to end
with them as just-friends? That sucked.
Richard Steven Hack
wrote:
Haven't seen it yet - but that sounds like your typical Hollywood
morality play - "Oh, heavens, we can't make it look like a gay couple
is all right!" Or, "Oh, heavens, we can't allow sex to lead to
something positive!"
For politicos who think Hollywood is full of disgusting deviant trash,
it's really full of moralists and sex-prurient bozos who simply cannot
address the issue of sex in a positive manner.
Take "Eyes Wide Shut" (haven't seen that one yet either, but I did
read about the plot) - first problem with that one is: Tom and Nicole
may be hot apart, but no one goes to see a married couple have sex on
screen, Supposedly the hot scene is Nicole and a guy she's NOT
married to. Then the whole "they have to experiment with deviance to
find out that in the end, deviance is wrong and conventional marriage
conquers all" - oh, brother... One would wish for more imagination...
Even if a director and producer don't believe in unconventional sex as
a cure-all or even a valid option they could at least try it as the
plot for the artistic possibilities...
Jodie Foster said she wanted to make a "very frank movie about sex" -
I bet it would have been interesting. But I don't think she has the
nerve either...
The Master
Keeper of Jodie Foster and Winona Ryder - and others
as we go along...
"Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger"
- and YOU have not killed me!
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited downloads - 19 servers ==-----
Andrew
: On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:06:48 -0700, "Jon Ridge" <shiz...@msn.com>
: wrote:
:>This movie has probably been talked to death, but I just saw
:>it and I have to say it's one of the most intelligent and funny
:>romantic comedies I've ever seen.
:>
:>It's sexy, too. I loved the bar scene where Helen puts her hand
:>on Jessica's leg, and ends up saying "You really should have
:>that looked at." But, why the fuck did we have to spend all
:>that time with them getting together and moving in, just to end
:>with [spoiler removed by Andrew]? That sucked.
: Haven't seen it yet - but that sounds like your typical Hollywood
: morality play - "Oh, heavens, we can't make it look like a gay couple
: is all right!" Or, "Oh, heavens, we can't allow sex to lead to
: something positive!"
On the contrary, Hollywood has taken to protraying gays and lesbians
in more positive lights lately, at least in minor roles. For example,
the two gay guys in "American Beauty", the Best Picture for 2000, are
portrayed as the most normal people in the film - everyone else is
nuts.
As for me: I thought "Kissing Jessica Stein" was light and
well-written but fluffy. And I think the lesbians in it are portrayed
as fairly "typical" people - one of the points of the film, I think.
: Take "Eyes Wide Shut" (haven't seen that one yet either, but I did
: read about the plot)
Can't you come up with a film you *have* seen as an example? Trying
to analyze a Stanley Kubrick film from reading the plot summary like
trying to appreciate a fine painting from the written description.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Paulfxfoley
>Take "Eyes Wide Shut" (haven't seen that one yet either, but I did
>read about the plot) - first problem with that one is: Tom and Nicole
>may be hot apart, but no one goes to see a married couple have sex on
>screen, Supposedly the hot scene is Nicole and a guy she's NOT
>married to. Then the whole "they have to experiment with deviance to
>find out that in the end, deviance is wrong and conventional marriage
>conquers all" - oh, brother... One would wish for more imagination...
You really ought to see the movie. Reduced to a plot summary, Richard III is
"mean people suck."
As for Eyes Wide Shut, most reviewers got it completely wrong... being gossip
columnists at heart, they focused on the Tom & Nicole tabloid stuff. Which of
course has nothing to do with the movie. Or they focused on the Kubrick as
nutty director stuff, which equally has nothing to do with the movie. The
reason they didn't focus on the movie is they were incapable of understanding
it.
I didn't like Eyes Wide Shut all that much, but one thing it's not lacking in
is imagination.
--Paul
--------------------------------
"Sooner is better than later."
Richard Steven Hack
Okay - you're right that I should see it before criticizing it.
However, I'm NOT criticizing HOW the film was made (I'm sure Kubrick
did his usual obsessive best) but more about the perceived message of
the film. That's what I gleaned from the comments made by critics at
the time of its release - it seemed to me that the story was simply a
fancier take on the usual Hollywood morality play... If it was more
complicated than that AT ITS HEART, then I stand corrected...