Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:"bone tomahawk"

B+. An excellent distraction on election night.

Bi_3 wrote:"House of the Devil"

Blah. I'm giving up on horror films. They just don't work for me anymore.

RussellManiac12 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:"House of the Devil"

Blah. I'm giving up on horror films. They just don't work for me anymore.

I love this one. Kind of a slow burn, but worth it. One of the few films that says it's a throwback to old school horror and actually delivers. It looks like a movie from the 80s.

I just wish they would have called it something else, because you could kinda guess what was eventually going to happen.

bart wrote:I agree. Also, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be much better if they had called it The Texas Unspecified Occurrence.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

durdencommatyler wrote:Bad Moms was so much fun. Surprised how solid it was. LOVED how progressive it was. Laughed a lot.

Orpheus wrote:Why are you so put off by that?

Orpheus wrote:Why are you so put off by that?

VinylGuy wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Why are you so put off by that?

I cant see why a movie like Bad Moms, is progressive really.
I just dont get it. Because Mila Kunis is in the supermarket in a very dull and boring montage?
Im not even going to discuss the horrible aesthetic, the wooden performances (Mila´s husband...is he a real actor?) but the overall feeling of ¨yeah this is edgy because ....¨ is whats i really really dont get.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Why are you so put off by that?

I cant see why a movie like Bad Moms, is progressive really.
I just dont get it. Because Mila Kunis is in the supermarket in a very dull and boring montage?
Im not even going to discuss the horrible aesthetic, the wooden performances (Mila´s husband...is he a real actor?) but the overall feeling of ¨yeah this is edgy because ....¨ is whats i really really dont get.

It's progressive because it treats its female characters in ways we don't typically see in American cinema. You seem to have a difficult time thinking beyond the surface whenever this conversation comes up. I've tried and it seems I just can't explain this to you. So I won't try again. But trust me, it is very progressive. I certainly never said it was edgy. Maybe others have, but I wouldn't classify it that way. Feminist, progressive, positive, and fresh (in regards to the way women are represented and portrayed and in it's female-first, non-political stance, structure), sure, but not edgy. It isn't edgy.

Moving on to your other issues with the movie... I loved that montage. The performances are sometimes wooden (as I said, it's a flawed film and one of its flaws is that some of the performances aren't as good as they should be). But Katheryn Hahn and Kristen Bell are outstanding. Fabulous performances. I actually like David Walton (Mila's husband). This is probably the least interesting thing he's done but he's fine in this. I won't get into why his character and performance are also progressive in the sense that I mean it because I know now you won't agree with me. But that stuff is a part of why I like his role so much.

Anyway, I laughed a lot and really enjoyed the film. That's the bottom line for me. It's flawed but so much fun and it felt fresh inspite of its obvious plot beats. It's familiar, of course, like any romantic comedy but it's flipped and that's what makes it progressive and interesting beyond the tropes. It's not revolutionary film making. But it's a solid film with some great laughs in it.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

tragabigzanda wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Why are you so put off by that?

I cant see why a movie like Bad Moms, is progressive really.
I just dont get it. Because Mila Kunis is in the supermarket in a very dull and boring montage?
Im not even going to discuss the horrible aesthetic, the wooden performances (Mila´s husband...is he a real actor?) but the overall feeling of ¨yeah this is edgy because ....¨ is whats i really really dont get.

It's progressive because it treats its female characters in ways we don't typically see in American cinema. You seem to have a difficult time thinking beyond the surface whenever this conversation comes up. I've tried and it seems I just can't explain this to you. So I won't try again. But trust me, it is very progressive. I certainly never said it was edgy. Maybe others have, but I wouldn't classify it that way. Feminist, progressive, positive, and fresh (in regards to the way women are represented and portrayed and in it's female-first, non-political stance, structure), sure, but not edgy. It isn't edgy.

Moving on to your other issues with the movie... I loved that montage. The performances are sometimes wooden (as I said, it's a flawed film and one of its flaws is that some of the performances aren't as good as they should be). But Katheryn Hahn and Kristen Bell are outstanding. Fabulous performances. I actually like David Walton (Mila's husband). This is probably the least interesting thing he's done but he's fine in this. I won't get into why his character and performance are also progressive in the sense that I mean it because I know now you won't agree with me. But that stuff is a part of why I like his role so much.

Anyway, I laughed a lot and really enjoyed the film. That's the bottom line for me. It's flawed but so much fun and it felt fresh inspite of its obvious plot beats. It's familiar, of course, like any romantic comedy but it's flipped and that's what makes it progressive and interesting beyond the tropes. It's not revolutionary film making. But it's a solid film with some great laughs in it.

I see your point but i still feel there is nothing progressive about it. Its the mainstream thought of being progressive, of women being ¨free¨.
Im ok with the last paragraph though, if you enjoyed the film thats the bottom line for everyone.

VG, have you ever heard of the Bechtel test? It's simple: Does a film contain more than two scenes of at least two women having conversations about something other than men? It may sound silly, but it's pretty sad how few films actually meet this criteria. From that standpoint alone, I can see why Joey might consider this movie to be progressive.