Sideways
Geoff Miller
So I finally saw this movie that everybody has
been raving about for so long. I got tired of
people's eyes widening and their jaws dropping
into their laps as they incredulously asked,
"You haven't seen 'Sideways?!?!'" ("Er, no.
Was I supposed to?") So I finally succumbed
to social pressure and rented it from Netflix.
In short, I thought it sucked. It's a fucking
turkey of a film. I realize that's blasphemy,
but there you have it.
The main characters are annoyingly neurotic, for
one thing. But mainly, my objection is that the
movie, supposedly about a pair of guys cutting
loose, out for a last, unrestrained, no-holds-
barred fling before one of them gets married,
is in actuality...a chick flick.
The audience gasps. A *chick flick?*
Yes. Any movie about relationships, or even with
a romantic sub-plot, is a chick flick by definition.
There you bloody have it. If that strikes you as
simplistic, it's because we've become so inured to
the idea of movies being geared toward women. The
conventional wisdom is that the generic movie patron
is a seventeen-year-old boy. Bullshit. It's a woman
of any age.
Some movies you know going in are chick flicks. The
titles give it away: "When Harry met Sally," "Terms
Of Endearment," "Chasing Amy," anything with the word
"wedding" in the title. And that's fine. Such forth-
right and up-front titles are informative, even if only
in the sense that the words "Danger - Keep Away" near
a helicopter's tail rotor are informative.
But in recent years, an infuriating subgenre that I
call "stealth" chick flicks has become all the rage.
These are films about essentially masculine subjects
-- war, action/adventure, historical disaster, etc.
-- wherein a "love interest" makes her appearance
partway through the story and knocks the plot off
kilter. Or at least creates a romantic subplot
that's a distraction from the primary story.
Three textbook examples of the "stealth chick
flick" genre are Top Gun, Titanic, and Pearl
Harbor. I was sufficiently aware of this type
of movie by the time Pearl Harbor came out that
as soon as I saw the movie poster, my immediate
thought was, here we go again. You remember it,
don't you? A couple of military guys against a
backdrop of explosions, zooming airplanes, and
burning battleships. And between the two guys
...a woman.
The reason this is done is readily apparent:
money. The studios want their products to be
all things to all audiences or, failing that,
to come as close to that ideal as possible.
So they come out with films that are osten-
sibly about manly stuff, but feel compelled
to inject a bit of kissyface to keep the
ladies interested. Or more precisely, to
entice them into the theaters with their
husbands and boyfriends at all. No matter
the subject of the movie; just put a woman
on the poster someplace, and the battle will
have been won.
Another aspect that can't be ignored is the
pandering to the idea of men having to break
stride and change their plans thanks to the
intervention of a woman. It's a variation of
the "Guess what? I'm pregnant!" theme, which
women understandably find empowering. Anyone
who thinks that isn't conscious and deliberate
is fooling himself.
What I don't get is...why is it okay for there
to be pure, unapologetic chick flicks and stealth
chick flicks, but not pure, unapologetic *guy*
movies?
If any romance film with a gratuitous subplot
involving gunplay, explosions, F-14s launching
off of carrier decks, nukes, or guys kicking
the shit out of each other, intended to keep
the males in the audience from squirming in
their seats, has ever been made, I've not run
across it.
Films designed for a primarily female audience
are never compromised in the way that movies
intended for a primarily male audience almost
always are.
As far as Top Gun is concerned, I had a last
laugh of sorts recently. Kelly McGillis came
out as a carpet muncher. "Looks like she's lost
that lovin' feeling, Goose!"
Geoff
--
"One-Armed Man Applauds the Kindness Of Strangers"
-- newspaper column headline
Queenie
wrote:
>So I finally saw this movie that everybody has
>been raving about for so long. I got tired of
>people's eyes widening and their jaws dropping
>into their laps as they incredulously asked,
>"You haven't seen 'Sideways?!?!'" ("Er, no.
>Was I supposed to?") So I finally succumbed
>to social pressure and rented it from Netflix.
You're so funny. Who are these people who are pressuring you to watch
movies, anyway? The bastards.
>In short, I thought it sucked. It's a fucking
>turkey of a film. I realize that's blasphemy,
>but there you have it.
>
>The main characters are annoyingly neurotic, for
>one thing. But mainly, my objection is that the
>movie, supposedly about a pair of guys cutting
>loose, out for a last, unrestrained, no-holds-
>barred fling before one of them gets married,
>is in actuality...a chick flick.
>
>The audience gasps. A *chick flick?*
>
>Yes. Any movie about relationships, or even with
>a romantic sub-plot, is a chick flick by definition.
>There you bloody have it. If that strikes you as
>simplistic, it's because we've become so inured to
>the idea of movies being geared toward women. The
>conventional wisdom is that the generic movie patron
>is a seventeen-year-old boy. Bullshit. It's a woman
>of any age.
I disagree about the ones with romantic sub-plots. If the movie is
mostly about crashing cars, blowing things up and killing people, the
"romantic" sub-plot is only there as a beard for the sex.
>Some movies you know going in are chick flicks. The
>titles give it away: "When Harry met Sally," "Terms
>Of Endearment," "Chasing Amy," anything with the word
>"wedding" in the title. And that's fine. Such forth-
>right and up-front titles are informative, even if only
>in the sense that the words "Danger - Keep Away" near
>a helicopter's tail rotor are informative.
>
>But in recent years, an infuriating subgenre that I
>call "stealth" chick flicks has become all the rage.
Oooh, invisible to guy-dar. (I made that up.) How infuriating can it
be? All you have to do is read the reviews before you go; if you
thought 'Titanic' was going to be about the physics involved when ship
meets iceberg, you simply weren't paying attention.
>These are films about essentially masculine subjects
>-- war, action/adventure, historical disaster, etc.
>-- wherein a "love interest" makes her appearance
>partway through the story and knocks the plot off
>kilter. Or at least creates a romantic subplot
>that's a distraction from the primary story.
But but but... most guys have people they care about; this makes the
fact that they're risking their lives that much more piquant.
>Three textbook examples of the "stealth chick
>flick" genre are Top Gun, Titanic, and Pearl
>Harbor. I was sufficiently aware of this type
>of movie by the time Pearl Harbor came out that
>as soon as I saw the movie poster, my immediate
>thought was, here we go again. You remember it,
>don't you? A couple of military guys against a
>backdrop of explosions, zooming airplanes, and
>burning battleships. And between the two guys
>...a woman.
I still object to having 'Titanic' in there. OK, the title doesn't
spell out "here there be feelings" but you know if they're going to
make a movie about the Titanic they want people to cry. Anyway, it's
the perfect chick flick and I loved it. Nyah.
>The reason this is done is readily apparent:
>money. The studios want their products to be
>all things to all audiences or, failing that,
>to come as close to that ideal as possible.
Money: it's a gas.
>So they come out with films that are osten-
>sibly about manly stuff, but feel compelled
>to inject a bit of kissyface to keep the
>ladies interested. Or more precisely, to
>entice them into the theaters with their
>husbands and boyfriends at all. No matter
>the subject of the movie; just put a woman
>on the poster someplace, and the battle will
>have been won.
Men earn the money, women spend it. Except in India, apparently:
or:
>Another aspect that can't be ignored is the
>pandering to the idea of men having to break
>stride and change their plans thanks to the
>intervention of a woman. It's a variation of
>the "Guess what? I'm pregnant!" theme, which
>women understandably find empowering. Anyone
>who thinks that isn't conscious and deliberate
>is fooling himself.
You mean, it's a deliberate plot twist used cynically to entertain and
gratify women? Gee, I thought that went out with the Westerns - my
dad loved to watch those on the classic movie channel, by the way.
Maybe they're just not as obvious about it now.
>What I don't get is...why is it okay for there
>to be pure, unapologetic chick flicks and stealth
>chick flicks, but not pure, unapologetic *guy*
>movies?
>If any romance film with a gratuitous subplot
>involving gunplay, explosions, F-14s launching
>off of carrier decks, nukes, or guys kicking
>the shit out of each other, intended to keep
>the males in the audience from squirming in
>their seats, has ever been made, I've not run
>across it.
Well... what would those "unapologetic guy movies" be like? I mean,
even the war movies have feelings in them, the whole 'band of
brothers' thing. Otherwise when somebody gets killed it's just a
video game or chess; "Oops, we lost a pawn."
So, even if you have a movie with only guys in it, who are bombing the
crap out of things, there are going to be mushy feelings, nest say
paw? Manly mushy feelings of course.
>Films designed for a primarily female audience
>are never compromised in the way that movies
>intended for a primarily male audience almost
>always are.
I still say, when Clint and Schwarzenegger have women in the movie,
it's just an opportunity for them to show their sexual manliness. On
that note, James Bond has been getting emotional, hasn't he? In
"Quantum of Solace" he was all sad about the woman he loved getting
killed, for example. Did that happen in the previous Bond movie? I
don't recall if I've seen it, now.
~Queenie, take it up with the screen writers guild.
van...@vsta.org
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:26:18 -0500, geo...@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
> fact that they're risking their lives that much more piquant.
Nah, I'm with Geoff... gimme guns, bombs, and high speed vehicles. (Throw in
some close-in knife work if you have the right choreographer.)
Most sex scenes and love interest lines are a waste of oxygen. It's probably
just because I'm getting old, but I find most of the current crop of starlets
to be annoying rather than in any way attractive or engaging.
$0.02,
Andy Valencia
Geoff Miller
Queenie <HRH...@gmail.com> writes:
> You're so funny.
I try.
> Who are these people who are pressuring you to
> watch movies, anyway? The bastards.
No individual person was literally pressuring me.
But in the aggregate, there was a definite societal
expectation, or at least a taking for granted, that
I'd seen the thing.
It wasn't the first time I've run into that, either.
I remember one time back in the early '80s when a
coworker alluded to a documentary that had been on
TV the evening before. When I drew an obvious blank,
he looked at me as though I'd shirked my responsibil-
ity to keep up with what "everybody" was watching on
the boob tube.
> I disagree about the ones with romantic sub-plots.
> If the movie is mostly about crashing cars, blowing
> things up and killing people, the "romantic" sub-plot
> is only there as a beard for the sex.
I'd say that the era of there being a need for any sort
of "beard" for the sex ended when films like "I Am Cur-
ious (Yellow)" and "The Last Tango In Paris" were
released as mainstream movies.
> How infuriating can it be? All you have to do is
> read the reviews before you go; if you thought
> 'Titanic' was going to be about the physics
> involved when ship meets iceberg, you simply
> weren't paying attention.
It isn't that I'm taken by surprise and feel like
I've been sold a bill of goods. It's a matter of
principle that would get under my skin even if I
never set foot in a theater. Or a matter of sev-
eral principles, to be precise.
To wit:
o Such films would be better without the distraction
of the contrived romantic sub-plots.
o The motives for contriving the kissy bits is so
transparent, and their execution, so ham-handed.
o Taking such a formulaic approach to filmmaking
is at odds with what's supposedly a creative
process.
o It's predictable, and therefore boring and tire-
some.
> But but but... most guys have people they care
> about;
Sure they do. But not romantic interests in the
figurative foxholes with them.
> this makes the fact that they're risking their
> lives that much more piquant.
Hey, that's *my* word!
> I still object to having 'Titanic' in there.
> OK, the title doesn't spell out "here there
> be feelings" but you know if they're going
> to make a movie about the Titanic they want
> people to cry.
I didn't cry. (Of course, I'm a guy...) I
saw it for the set and the special effects,
which were admittedly top-notch. Interest-
ingly, the set was built to something like
2/3 scale; the actual ship was a lot bigger
than it looked in the movie.
But what I wanna know is: How come nobody who
jumped into the water screamed about how cold
it was? The ship sank off Newfoundland, for
Ghod's sake. Water at that latitude is a def-
inite peter-retreater.
The answer, of course, is that the set was
built in a tank in Mexico, and nobody thought
to remind the actors to pretend that they were
cold.
And the Hollywood actors, being more conversant
with left-wing politics and the environmental
fad _du jour_ than they are with history (or much
else to do with the real world, for that matter),
didn't think about it, either.
> Anyway, it's the perfect chick flick and I
> loved it. Nyah.
Note the parallel to Sideways: Leonardo Di
Caprio's character is traveling with a bud,
that Italian kid who later ends up getting
smashed in the water by the toppling funnel
when the ship heels over and its guy wires
snap.
But soon after boarding, the plot takes a
sudden turn when he meets Kate Winslett's
character. Instantly, the historical aspect
becomes merely a backdrop to the kissy, slob-
bery bits. Chick-o-rama.
And to top it all off, DiCaprio's character
never even had an opportunity to get into her
pants. If the film had been written for guys,
he'd have slipped her the snot sausage before
he died.
> Men earn the money, women spend it. Except
> in India, apparently:
The Patriarchy roolz.
(By the way: tinyurl.com has a "preview" option
that would spare you the trouble of posting the
original link, and would prevent that unsightly
wraparound.
> You mean, it's a deliberate plot twist used
> cynically to entertain and gratify women?
Something like that.
> Gee, I thought that went out with the Westerns
[...]
Dunno. I was so heartily sick of westerns by
the time I was eight or thereabouts that I
haven't seen more than a handful recently
enough to remember them. ("Daddy, why aren't
there any airplanes in this movie?") The only
two I remember liking are "Butch Cassidy And
the Sundance Kid" and "True Grit."
When I was knee-high to a high knee, it seemed
like half the movies and TV shows were Westerns,
with most of the remainder being detective dramas.
Or hybrids of the two genres, like "Have Gun, Will
Travel." A few years later, somebody milked the
tail end of the Western craze by blending it with
the new secret agent craze, creating "The Wild,
Wild West."
> Well... what would those "unapologetic guy
> movies" be like?
Much the same, minus the kissyface. Ever seen
"Downfall," about Mean Mr. Mustache's last days
in the bunker? That's a good example of how it's
possible to have a "guy film" that has plenty of
human drama but precious little smooching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOAXJTTc__w
> I mean, even the war movies have feelings in them,
> the whole 'band of brothers' thing. Otherwise
> when somebody gets killed it's just a video game
> or chess; "Oops, we lost a pawn."
I'm not claiming that men are bereft of emotion and
sentiment. I'm saying that when it's portrayed in
action films, it needn't be of the romantic variety.
Or even involve the men themselves.
An example of how this can be pulled off is "We Were
Soldiers," a Mel Gibson flick from several years back
about Ia Drang, the first major battle of the Vietnam
War in 1965. During the second half, there are lots
of cuts from the battlefield scenes to the home front,
as Army wives are notified that their husbands have been
killed. Emotion aplenty -- but it's relevant to the
story, not contrived. It's a good flick; I recommend
it.
> So, even if you have a movie with only guys in it,
> who are bombing the crap out of things, there are
> going to be mushy feelings, nest say paw? Manly
> mushy feelings of course.
Naah. There are no actual people down there. It's
just a view through the bombsight.
> I still say, when Clint and Schwarzenegger have
> women in the movie, it's just an opportunity for
> them to show their sexual manliness. On that
> note, James Bond has been getting emotional,
> hasn't he? In "Quantum of Solace" he was all
> sad about the woman he loved getting killed,
> for example. Did that happen in the previous
> Bond movie? I don't recall if I've seen it, now.
I didn't see the first Bond film with this new
guy. I guess that was "Casino Royale."
I remember Bond being sad about the woman he
loved getting killed only once, at the end of
1969's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service."
Interestingly, his love interest was played by
Dianna Rigg, Emma Peel on "The Avengers."
"Quantum Of Solace" was a decent flick. I'v really
come to look forward to Judy Dench's performances
as "M," even though I originally resented a woman
being placed into that role as a sop to feminists
and political correctness generally. But the U.S.
being the "heavy" in the latest film rubbed me the
wrong way. Hello? Whatever happened to the "special
relationship?"
Julian Macassey
>
>
>
> In short, I thought it sucked. It's a fucking
> turkey of a film. I realize that's blasphemy,
> but there you have it.
It had some fun parts.
>
> The main characters are annoyingly neurotic, for
> one thing. But mainly, my objection is that the
> movie, supposedly about a pair of guys cutting
> loose, out for a last, unrestrained, no-holds-
> barred fling before one of them gets married,
> is in actuality...a chick flick.
>
> The audience gasps. A *chick flick?*
With drinking and shagging. Two things most 'Merkin
chicks get uppity about anyhow.
>
> But in recent years, an infuriating subgenre that I
> call "stealth" chick flicks has become all the rage.
Not that recent.
>
> These are films about essentially masculine subjects
> -- war, action/adventure, historical disaster, etc.
> -- wherein a "love interest" makes her appearance
> partway through the story and knocks the plot off
> kilter. Or at least creates a romantic subplot
> that's a distraction from the primary story.
Like "Ice Cold in Alex" (1958)?
> The reason this is done is readily apparent:
> money. The studios want their products to be
> all things to all audiences or, failing that,
> to come as close to that ideal as possible.
Yup, and if the chick can't come, he won't go.
>
> What I don't get is...why is it okay for there
> to be pure, unapologetic chick flicks and stealth
> chick flicks, but not pure, unapologetic *guy*
> movies?
See above. And if she can't come, trouble follows
>
> Films designed for a primarily female audience
> are never compromised in the way that movies
> intended for a primarily male audience almost
> always are.
Because Mr. Pussiwhipp comes along or gets "We never go
anywhere" etc.
--
This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with
Negroes, entertainers, and any others. - Harry J. Anslinger
Julian Macassey
>
> Dunno. I was so heartily sick of westerns by
> the time I was eight or thereabouts that I
> haven't seen more than a handful recently
> enough to remember them. ("Daddy, why aren't
> there any airplanes in this movie?") The only
> two I remember liking are "Butch Cassidy And
> the Sundance Kid" and "True Grit."
You want manly movies? You want manly westerns? May I
suggest Spaghetti Westerns.
For example "Once upon a time in the West".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_the_West
Or even Sabata
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066745/
Jeannie
>
> So, even if you have a movie with only guys in it, who are bombing the
> crap out of things, there are going to be mushy feelings, nest say
> paw? Manly mushy feelings of course.
"Predator" comes immediately to mind here.
Jeannie
Jeannie
> Queenie <HRHQ...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Who are these people who are pressuring you to
> > watch movies, anyway? The bastards.
>
> No individual person was literally pressuring me.
> But in the aggregate, there was a definite societal
> expectation, or at least a taking for granted, that
> I'd seen the thing.
>
> It wasn't the first time I've run into that, either.
> I remember one time back in the early '80s when a
> coworker alluded to a documentary that had been on
> TV the evening before. When I drew an obvious blank,
> he looked at me as though I'd shirked my responsibil-
> ity to keep up with what "everybody" was watching on
> the boob tube.
My co-worker knows very little about movies and TV; she just smiles
and says, "I don't get out much."
> But what I wanna know is: How come nobody who
> jumped into the water screamed about how cold
> it was? The ship sank off Newfoundland, for
> Ghod's sake. Water at that latitude is a def-
> inite peter-retreater.
>
> The answer, of course, is that the set was
> built in a tank in Mexico, and nobody thought
> to remind the actors to pretend that they were
> cold.
I thought the two stars did a reasonable facsimile of teeth-
chattering.
> And to top it all off, DiCaprio's character
> never even had an opportunity to get into her
> pants. If the film had been written for guys,
> he'd have slipped her the snot sausage before
> he died.
He did. You've forgotten the steamy (literally) scene in the car in
the hold.
Jeannie
David Arnstein
On a rather different wavelength, I enjoyed "The Hangover."
I saw it with a woman too!
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstei...@pobox.com {{ }}
^^
Geoff Miller
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> writes:
> It had some fun parts.
Yes, it did. It wasn't a total loss, by any means.
But there was something that was nagging at me in
the back of my mind most of the way through it, and
upon later reflection, I realized that it was because
the thing was essentially a chick flick.
: The audience gasps. A *chick flick?*
> With drinking and shagging. Two things most 'Merkin
> chicks get uppity about anyhow.
True. That irony wasn't lost on me.
(What was Miles's beef with Merlot, though? The film
never developed that theme. I gathered that it was
just an arbitrary thing with him, an idiosyncrasy.
Maybe it was because "everybody" was drinking Merlot,
and he considered himself more of a connoisseur than
that.)
> Not that recent.
> Like "Ice Cold in Alex" (1958)?
Never heard of it. But what's relevant is that while
I'm sure the chickification of essentially masculine
film themes isn't *literally* something that began with
Top Gun in 1986, and that there'd been isolated instances
of it in the past, it's become well-nigh universal in the
here and now.
> Yup, and if the chick can't come, he won't go.
Yes! Ghod, I hate that shit.
> See above. And if she can't come, trouble follows
Yup. The guy doesn't have the balls to say, "Honey, I
love ya, but sometimes a guy's gotta do what a guy's
gotta do. Don't wait up; I'll be home when I'm home.
Start the foreplay without me. I plan to have a few
beers with the boys after the movie."
And then the next morning"
He: "What's wrong?"
She: "Nothing!"
He: "Great! Glad to hear it. <goes back to reading
the sports page>
She: <sulks>
Geoff Miller
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> writes:
> You want manly movies? You want manly westerns?
> May I suggest Spaghetti Westerns.
> For example "Once upon a time in the West".
You suggested that one to me several years ago. I rented
it, and truly enjoyed it. Thanks for reminding me of the
genre.
I just remembered that I've never seen the Clint Eastwood
spaghetti westerns: A Fisful Of Dollars, For A Few Dollars
More, The Good, the Bad And the Ugly, and all those. I'll
add them to my Netflix queue.
> Or even Sabata
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066745/
A German western written by guineas? This I've got to see.
Veronique
> wrote:
>
> >So I finally saw this movie that everybody has
> >been raving about for so long. I got tired of
> >people's eyes widening and their jaws dropping
> >into their laps as they incredulously asked,
> >"You haven't seen 'Sideways?!?!'" ("Er, no.
> >Was I supposed to?") So I finally succumbed
> >to social pressure and rented it from Netflix.
>
> You're so funny. Who are these people who are pressuring you to watch
> movies, anyway? The bastards.
Wasn't me. I've never seen it (and I'd add "either" but apparently
Geoff was the second to last person in the universe and I'm the sole
holdout.).
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
JC Dill
> Wasn't me. I've never seen it (and I'd add "either" but apparently
> Geoff was the second to last person in the universe and I'm the sole
> holdout.).
I haven't seen it, either. Wanna go catch a chick flick?
jc
Veronique
I'll pretty much go see anything with anybody. I'm easy that way.
V., "...prolly why I haven't seen a whole lot of chick flicks."
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Julian Macassey
>
>
> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> writes:
>
>> It had some fun parts.
>
> Yes, it did. It wasn't a total loss, by any means.
> But there was something that was nagging at me in
> the back of my mind most of the way through it, and
> upon later reflection, I realized that it was because
> the thing was essentially a chick flick.
>
>
>: The audience gasps. A *chick flick?*
>
>> With drinking and shagging. Two things most 'Merkin
>> chicks get uppity about anyhow.
>
> True. That irony wasn't lost on me.
I found it amusing.
>
> (What was Miles's beef with Merlot, though? The film
> never developed that theme. I gathered that it was
> just an arbitrary thing with him, an idiosyncrasy.
> Maybe it was because "everybody" was drinking Merlot,
> and he considered himself more of a connoisseur than
> that.)
He was just being yet another Merkin wine snob frightened
of being in the wrong camp. Drink the wine you like, there's a
radical thought.
>
>> Not that recent.
>
>> Like "Ice Cold in Alex" (1958)?
>
> Never heard of it. But what's relevant is that while
> I'm sure the chickification of essentially masculine
> film themes isn't *literally* something that began with
> Top Gun in 1986, and that there'd been isolated instances
> of it in the past, it's become well-nigh universal in the
> here and now.
I bitched about it in the 60s. That's why I loved
Spaghetti Western and gangster movies. Many starred Henry Fonda,
Charles Bronson, Kirk Douglas, Yul Brynner and other Hollywood
regulars.
>
>> Yup, and if the chick can't come, he won't go.
>
> Yes! Ghod, I hate that shit.
Well, he knows his life will be miserable if he doesn't
toe the line.
>
>> See above. And if she can't come, trouble follows
>
> Yup. The guy doesn't have the balls to say, "Honey, I
> love ya, but sometimes a guy's gotta do what a guy's
> gotta do. Don't wait up; I'll be home when I'm home.
> Start the foreplay without me. I plan to have a few
> beers with the boys after the movie."
>
> And then the next morning"
>
> He: "What's wrong?"
>
> She: "Nothing!"
>
> He: "Great! Glad to hear it. <goes back to reading
> the sports page>
>
> She: <sulks>
For two weeks. Which means Poon Famine!
And should he outsource the de-spunking, more trouble
follows as fixing the problem is called "cheating".
Thomas Breen
in Message id: <ZfydnSyrs8aT_q3X...@posted.lavanet>:
>I just remembered that I've never seen the Clint Eastwood
>spaghetti westerns: A Fisful Of Dollars, For A Few Dollars
>More, The Good, the Bad And the Ugly, and all those. I'll
>add them to my Netflix queue.
I envy you. I would love to be seeing those for the *first* time.
Jeannie
> On Jun 10, 7:09 pm, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Veronique wrote:
> > > Wasn't me. I've never seen it (and I'd add "either" but apparently
> > > Geoff was the second to last person in the universe and I'm the sole
> > > holdout.).
>
> > I haven't seen it, either. Wanna go catch a chick flick?
>
> I'll pretty much go see anything with anybody. I'm easy that way.
I'd invite myself along since I haven't seen "Sideways" either, but I
don't think it's in theaters any more. I miss more movies that
way...they just won't hold them for six months or so until I can go
see them.
Jeannie
Queenie
Woohoo, girls' night. My house, netflix, "Sideways"...
Damn, I'm leaving Sunday. Maybe next month.
~Queenie, just as happy to watch the "man with no name" kick some ass,
though, oh yeah.
BCFD36
> Queenie <HRHQ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:26:18 -0500, geo...@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
> > But but but... most guys have people they care about; this makes the
> > fact that they're risking their lives that much more piquant.
>
> Nah, I'm with Geoff... gimme guns, bombs, and high speed vehicles. (Throw in
> some close-in knife work if you have the right choreographer.)
Some swords, long bows, axes, pikes, maces (Henry V) are always nice.
And I agree with my wife... Sideways was terrible.
>
> Most sex scenes and love interest lines are a waste of oxygen. It's probably
> just because I'm getting old, but I find most of the current crop of starlets
> to be annoying rather than in any way attractive or engaging.
Agree, for the most part.
>
> $0.02,
> Andy Valencia
D. Scruggs
Veronique
I loved the spaghetti westerns and those teeny-tiny gaited horses.
Veronique
I saw the previews, and it wasn't enough to cause me to seek out a
movie-viewing partner. Something about wine, right? And two goofs? I'm
not sure seeing a whole movie about neurotic goofs is that appealing.
I just saw "Up" with a friend, which I liked. And I saw "In Bruges"
with Queenie at her house awhile ago. I wonder if Geoff would consider
that a chick flick?
Jed
<veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I just saw "Up" with a friend, which I liked. And I saw "In Bruges"
>with Queenie at her house awhile ago. I wonder if Geoff would consider
>that a chick flick?
Are Kill Bill v.1/2 and Grindhouse "chick flicks"?
Queenie
'Kill Bill' definately is...
Too bad about David, though.
~Queenie
Geoff Miller
Jeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I'd invite myself along since I haven't seen "Sideways"
> either, but I don't think it's in theaters any more.
So rent it. Make some popcorn. Have some wine. Maybe
even order a pizza. Put your feet up if you feel like it.
You can pause the movie whenever you want, and you won't
have to deal with the idiots in the theaters.
Geoff Miller
Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> writes:
> I just saw "Up" with a friend, which I liked.
Some of those animated films can be worthwhile. I
dismissed "Shrek" as kid fare for the longest time,
but when I finally saw it, I thought it was very
good.
> And I saw "In Bruges" with Queenie at her house
> awhile ago. I wonder if Geoff would consider
> that a chick flick?
"Ray strikes up a romance with Chloe (Clemence Poesy)..."
-- Wikipedia
Yes.
Geoff Miller
Jed <zyzygy@plenip�tentiary.com.invalid> wonders:
> Are Kill Bill v.1/2 and Grindhouse "chick flicks"?
I haven't seen Grindhouse yet. And I should remedy
that, since I'm a Quentin Tarantino fan.
But Kill Bill certainly wasn't. Yes, there was a
wedding scene in the first part. But it was over
with soon enough, and the movie certainly wasn't
a romantic drama.
Jeannie
> Jeannie <hpjean...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I'd invite myself along since I haven't seen "Sideways"
> > either, but I don't think it's in theaters any more.
>
> So rent it. Make some popcorn. Have some wine. Maybe
> even order a pizza. Put your feet up if you feel like it.
> You can pause the movie whenever you want, and you won't
> have to deal with the idiots in the theaters.
Yeah, at Queenie's after she gets back from her world tour.
I keep wanting to rent movies, but I can't seem to put together 2-3
hours in a row. I'm so used to multitasking that it's become
difficult to actually sit down and watch something without hopping up
to check this and do that and work on something else.
No wonder the new critter isn't a lap-cat yet. Gotta fix that....
Jeannie
Steve Thompson
>
>
> Jed <zyzygy@plenip�tentiary.com.invalid> wonders:
>
> > Are Kill Bill v.1/2 and Grindhouse "chick flicks"?
>
>
> I haven't seen Grindhouse yet. And I should remedy
> that, since I'm a Quentin Tarantino fan.
>
> But Kill Bill certainly wasn't. Yes, there was a
> wedding scene in the first part. But it was over
> with soon enough, and the movie certainly wasn't
> a romantic drama.
Yes, I'm still here Geoff. No need to troll so hard.
And incidentally, I think it's about time you and your fellow
blowhards -- whether they be private or public sector blowhards -- got
together and made up some bumper stickers with "The South Will Rise
Again" printed on it, and then congratulate each other with regulation
back-slaps on what a good joke you're having on everyone.
Regards,
Steve
--
People become computer programmers because they want to find out what
is wrong with their computers, and then fix them. All night hacking
sessions are a common symptom of the disease. It rarely succeeds.
Queenie
wrote:
>
>
>Jed <zyzygy@plenip�tentiary.com.invalid> wonders:
>
>> Are Kill Bill v.1/2 and Grindhouse "chick flicks"?
>
>
>I haven't seen Grindhouse yet. And I should remedy
>that, since I'm a Quentin Tarantino fan.
>
>But Kill Bill certainly wasn't. Yes, there was a
>wedding scene in the first part. But it was over
>with soon enough, and the movie certainly wasn't
>a romantic drama.
Oh, yes it was.
~Queenie, besides she did it for the baby.
Geoff Miller
Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> writes:
> I loved the spaghetti westerns and those teeny-tiny
> gaited horses.
Only a chick would look that closely at the horses.
(What is it with women and horses?)
Jeannie
> Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I loved the spaghetti westerns and those teeny-tiny
> > gaited horses.
>
> Only a chick would look that closely at the horses.
>
> (What is it with women and horses?)
Do you keep asking this hoping to get a different answer? Well, you
won't! It's to get women used to dealing with big, strong, dumb
animals, of course.
Jeannie
next!
Veronique
...who can be trained to respond to nearly invisible cues. Invaluable.
Veronique
> Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I just saw "Up" with a friend, which I liked.
>
> Some of those animated films can be worthwhile. I
> dismissed "Shrek" as kid fare for the longest time,
> but when I finally saw it, I thought it was very
> good.
>
> > And I saw "In Bruges" with Queenie at her house
> > awhile ago. I wonder if Geoff would consider
> > that a chick flick?
>
> "Ray strikes up a romance with Chloe (Clemence Poesy)..."
> -- Wikipedia
>
> Yes.
"Once Upon A Time In Mexico"?
V., bettin' you'd like In Bruges anyway.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Julian Macassey
>
>
> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I loved the spaghetti westerns and those teeny-tiny
>> gaited horses.
>
>
> Only a chick would look that closely at the horses.
>
> (What is it with women and horses?)
Women think horses are a realtionship. Men think horses
are a tool.
I think horses are dangerous at both ends and
uncomfortable in the middle.
--
"Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't
think that is a coincidence." - Anon, The UNIX-HATERS Handbook
Geoff Miller
Jeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> sputters:
: (What is it with women and horses?)
> Do you keep asking this hoping to get a different answer?
It was a rhetorical question. I don't expect to get *any*
answer; at least, not a revealing one. The responses I've
seen have run the gamut (what exactly is a "gamut," anyway?)
from outright denial to smartass quips. The sheer variety
is entertaining in itself.
> It's to get women used to dealing with big, strong, dumb
> animals, of course.
Yeah, right. Just like the reason black guys are always
holding their crotches is because "That's the only thing
you haven't taken from us."
Geoff
--
"Slow down, Joe, I'm a rock 'n' roll man
I've twiddled my thumbs in a dozen-odd bands
Oh, and you ain't seen nothin' 'till you been
In a motel, baby, like a Holiday Inn"
Rich Seifert
<e98a9264-2424-4d94...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Jeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:06�am, Queenie <HRHQ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, even if you have a movie with only guys in it, who are bombing the
> > crap out of things, there are going to be mushy feelings, nest say
> > paw? �Manly mushy feelings of course.
>
> "Predator" comes immediately to mind here.
>
I can imagine Governor Schwarzenegger looking at Assembly Speaker Karen
Bass, saying, "You are one ugly mother f***er!"
--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 228-0803 FAX
Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com
spamtrap1888
> So I finally saw this movie that everybody has
> been raving about for so long. I got tired of
> people's eyes widening and their jaws dropping
> into their laps as they incredulously asked,
> "You haven't seen 'Sideways?!?!'" ("Er, no.
> Was I supposed to?") So I finally succumbed
> to social pressure and rented it from Netflix.
Hmmm... Sad sack middle-aged dork fussy to the point of OCD improbably
attracts woman much hotter than he is, along with a quirky Asian
chick. Why would people think Geoff would/should have seen that?
> The audience gasps. A *chick flick?*
>
> Yes. Any movie about relationships, or even with
> a romantic sub-plot, is a chick flick by definition.
> There you bloody have it.
...
> What I don't get is...why is it okay for there
> to be pure, unapologetic chick flicks and stealth
> chick flicks, but not pure, unapologetic *guy*
> movies?
>
But how can one depict male-female relationships without falling into
chick flick territory? Male slays dragon, female drops panties? Or
must all films have samurai plots -- elder masters get sexual relief
by boning eager novices, thus avoiding any male-female relationship
distractions.
Geoff Miller
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmmm... Sad sack middle-aged dork fussy to the point of
> OCD improbably attracts woman much hotter than he is,
> along with a quirky Asian chick. Why would people think
> Geoff would/should have seen that?
I'd have boned either one of them, especially if they'd
all but fallen into my lap as they did into the laps of
Miles and his friend. But you're missing my point.
> But how can one depict male-female relationships
> without falling into chick flick territory? Male
> slays dragon, female drops panties? Or must all
> films have samurai plots -- elder masters get
> sexual relief by boning eager novices, thus
> avoiding any male-female relationship distractions.
As my friend Peggy Currid (late of these parts) would
say: "Yucque."
The pursuit of the desirable female, and the resulting
dropping of panties and juicing up of 'ginas, is
certainly not outside the truly manly experience, to
put it mildly.
The problem arises <heh> when the relationship aspect
takes over -- indeed, hijacks -- the plot of a film.
Let's consider some examples. Take "The Birds," for
instance. Tippi Hedren's character obviously had the
hots for Rod Taylor's character, which prompted her to
drive for two hours to deliver the lovebirds in person.
(How a pet shop employee could afford an Aston-Martin
DB-2 is set aside for the moment.)
But things soon went pear-shaped, as the Brits are wont
to say. Their their aching loins remained in the back-
ground, always there but never taking over. Indeed, that
aspect of the film receded into the distance as the story
progressed.
(Aside: You know The Breakers, that bar in Bodega Bay
with that drunk who said "It's the end a'the world"?
I've been there. Hoo ha.)
Much like, say, the romantic thread of the college kid on
the motorcycle and his farmgirl love interest did in "The
Day After" when the nukes started falling. Suddenly,
everybody had more important things to think about than
kissyface or even (dare I say it?) poontang.
"The Day After" is available on video, by the way. It
and "Doctor Strangelove" make a good double feature,
especially after a few shots of iced Stoli. Yes, I
speak from experience.
Next, let's look at "Casablanca" and "To Have And Have
Not," shweetheart. The sexual tension between Bogie
and Ingrid Bergman and Lauren Bacall, respectively,
adds a critical dimension to those films, but it
doesn't take them over to the point of distraction or
send the stories swerving off in unexpected directions.
Bogie doesn't have to break stride or change his plans
because of the sudden appearance of a female ("Honey,
guess what? I'm pregnant!")
Yes, Rick gave up his letter of transit and put Bergman
on the plane with her fiancee. But in the end, Rick
remained in Casablanca as the love interest passed out
of the story. Ultimately, the love-interest subplot
didn't amount to a hill of beans in that crazy world.
(What exactly his "beautiful friendship" with Louis went
on to entail is best left to the student as an exercise.)
And in "To Have and Have Not," yes, the plot to escape on
the motor launch went through as planned, and Bacall's
character "Slim" wasn't an undue distraction to what had
to be done. If the beast with two backs was ultimately
made, it was hinted at as a likely future development,
beyond the scope of the story as presented.
Consider another of my fave Bogie films, "The African
Queen." While the budding romance between Humphrey
Bogart and Katharine Heburn was undeniably the central
element of the story, the drama remained first and
foremost a wartime adventure drama, not a romance.
And the interplay between Bogie and Hepburn was inter-
esting mainly as the initial clash and eventual
accomodation of two strong personalities, not as
gratuitious, out-of-left-field kissyface qua kissyface.
Westerns? What manlier movie genre is there? Okay,
I'll play. As I said before, thanks to overdosing on
the things as a sprat, there were only two westerns I
immediately liked on the first viewing, "Butch Cassidy
And the Sundance Kid" and "True Grit."
In "Butch Cassidy," Butch gets some nookie early on
("Raindrops keep fallin' on muh head..."), but the
story soon gets a lot more interesting.
There was a leading (and quite well-acted) female
presence in "True Grit." But the Duke never slipped
it to Kim Darby's character -- or better yet, shoved
it into her yammering piehole. Which is a pity, since
a good shloonking, especially from no less an eminence,
might've shut her up and taught her some basic feminine
humility.
(Just kidding, ladies, just kidding.)
Since we're in the vein of macho icons, we can't
overlook Steve MCQueen. Remember "Bullitt?" Of
course you do. What do you recall first and fore-
most, his girlfriend -- or a Mustang chasing a
Charger up and down the hills of San Francisco?
I rest my case.
Geoff
--
"I do so hate missionaries. Whatever their position."
-- Angus McIntyre