Відео

The movie was relatively tame for a raunchy comedy, but the themes and representation were its strongest points, though they could have been explored much more. One thing to note is that Hsu filmed Joy Ride in 2021 after EEAAO wrapped in 2019. No one knew that movie and her role would be such a breakout.

why do you guys think a manhunter like Brando would be normal, would not he be an eccentric??? Brando rocks, the movie is awesome... Kevin Spacey story on Nicholson: the wardrobe guy brought Jack his costume and stated he was excited to work with him for a 2nd time. the fella stated they had worked on Missouri Breaks before, and Jack declared that he was off his rocker the entire movie. Jack then preceded to put the pants he had just taken off and put them on a hanger and an eight ball of cocaine fell out of the pants... the legendary Jack Nicholson delcared "i haven't worn these since Missouri Breaks"... fax!!!

The Philadelphia Story is easily the superior movie of the two. Katherine Hepburn, Carey Grant and Jimmy Stewart have a charisma and screen appeal that cannot be matched. Turning it into a musical for the remake just waters the whole thing down and makes it rather bland in comparison.

Nancy has Borderline Personality Disorder. Albert has Schzoid Personality Disorder. Reminds me of parents yet my parents were much sicker. Lol

I admire anyione who can finish an independent film and get it out there. That said, I though THE FLORIDA PROJECT was terribly written. Yes they captured that dirty world in an almost documentary style. But the characters didnt develop and there was almost no story nor any plot. I couldn't wait for it to be over.

Greetings from Belgium... Thumbs up here. i love Goldfinger.

Kate realized, and Geoff problaly did too , that his life was unraveling due ageing and she would be his caretaker before long. I think that is what she did not want to force him to acknowledge. Also the photographs she found of Katya did not show her as the happy smiling girl that Geoff portrayed her as, What does this mean in scheme of things as they continue their life together? 29:45 Kate knows she must add more to her coming life hence her seeking out her old sheet music and returning to her music. I am absolutely enthralled by this movie, have watched it several times and will again. I very much enjoyed the critiques of you guys. Thanks

Larry Parks did not play Al Jolson, or his career, but a constructed version of both - Brilliantly!

Well done!

Intersting showdown ciriria and valid questions. J B, you've avoided clarity on wether your thematic knocks are your viewing audience's or are they more personally your own? Unlike George, your youthful age is front and center.

Nice job here fellows!

I laughed at the ignorance and incompetence of these three guys. They just don’t have the insight, maturity or capacity to accurately comment on this film.

Yeah the plane lighting was not very pleasing

Myrna Low?

Bruh cat sitting for your ex ? You're like Walter from the Big Lebowski man damn

I watched until the ear-piercing yelling & artifuacts hurt my ears too an intolerable degree. . Then I bailed. Sorry.

I'm just so glad that you've decided to do this review because I feel that people are not talking enough about it. Personally, I think this hidden gem of a movie is a master-class in film acting and directing. Both leads are stupendous, but Matthias really stood out for me. This dude is a major actor and he proved himself again in Bullhead, one of the best character studies and acting performances of all time imo.

Awesome!

dude wtf Its 2021 wtf are these cameras

I don't know if you guys, of a younger demographic than me, born in 1950, access The Jolson Story as being overall somewhat flowery, prim and proper, honor thy mother and father, children should be seen and not heard, all the traits, the attitudes that were the thing in those pre youth revolution days. As a kid I was not allowed to watch Ozzie and Harriot, when I was about 9? YOUR NOT WATCHING THAT BOGIES, ROCKING AND ROLLING STUFF. MY mother would say. IT IS ABOVE YOUR HEAD. [ RICKY NELSON ? ] The Jolson Story, was made in the mid 1940's, based on earlier times, but. like other movies of that time depicting earlier, it sort of gives an impression nobody even Burped in those by gone days, to the point of just BEING unrealistic. It is said by some AL had a foul MOUTH, and more problems than one wife leaving him. I am not suggesting. then, now, or whenever? things should, could be taken to the other extreme, than the very nice nostalgic. sweet movie we have, just that more recent generations might respond a bit more to something toughened up a bit, or at least more realistic to life? Any thoughts please anybody?

JB Lost the point of the film completly

You live in SF? I'm in Oakland. :) Great video.

pr໐๓໐Ş๓

This movie is perfect

I think Leonard had bipolar. He seemed to get really hyped up and goofy followed by depression. It seemed like Gwenyth’s character made him high. Vinessa Shaw, who’s a lot more sexy and attractive than Gwenyth, seemed to keep him stable which was not that exciting for him. I suppose the end of the movie, Leonard learns to grow up and what a healthy relationship is.

I enjoyed the movie. One thing I sometimes think about is, damn, Leonard got some attractive women for a dude who’s about 30 and lives with his parents.

What a trio of the cynical and clueless . At 12:35, the host says the close-up of Bonnie's eyes at the beginning wasn't a close-up, it was a zoom, and then derides it. The camera lens didn't zoom, the camera pulled in for the close-up. And he says he's watched it several times? That was enough for me. I bailed out after that. --Bonnie and Clyde was Arthur Penn's masterpiece, and should have won the best picture Oscar that year. My all time favorite film. --No wonder there were no comments here. --Well guys, at least you now have one.

A lot of scenes were filmed in Spokane Washington. The day spa, the bridge they driver over at the end, and a few other outside scenes.

The bearded guy doesn’t get the whole point of the movie, he gives off “cancel culture” vibes.

Grant & Loy were also very good together in “Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House”

Good movie. A lot of people face these types of decisions in their life when settling down with a partner. Stay with the secure, plain lover who's pretty/handsome enough or go for the beautiful, gorgeous exciting lover who steals your heart? Leonard does a great job portraying how love can make you do stupid things and leave everything and anything behind. A girl like Michelle didn't want someone like Leonard, but to be fair she always told Leonard how she felt about him; a friend or a brother.

Try johhny mad dog city of god city of men turistas try the harder they come rude boy the jamaican don

Manos sucias Is great movie 🎬 idk what movies u like but i got alot more movies to show you try brazil 🇧🇷 city of god city of men or the lic from Chicago ghetto Dawgs intent 2 jamaican mafia the revenant 4 corners south African movies gangsters pararadise Jerusalama or the sicicilian

Nice! Boost your online stats - P-R-O-M-O-S-M !!!

ffs stop screaming, cant listen

Just putting the focus on the movie. Explain to me. all the horror you are putting on the blackface!

I don't know a damn thing, except I eather like this video in the begining, or end it right now

First of all, I enjoyed the discussion. Everyone had something interesting to say even if I didn't 100% agree with any one person on this panel. It's a very thoughtful exchange even if I have to add my two cents, here. It is a revisionist western, of course. So naturally I think the idea of wanting to tear down the cowboy myth is certainly valid and supported as it pertains to the film's aspirations. This idea of the cowboy as a superhero that uses violence in this tidy, sanitized way seemed to annoy Peckinpah in the context of Vietnam and the late 1960s. That said, I think just jumping to a buzz phrase like 'toxic masculinity' (as per contemporary critical theory) is kind of a shallow critique and kind of misses the bigger, broader more profound ideas being conveyed in this film. Particularly when you see the children with the scorpion at the beginning of the film (which includes young girls) and think about what the film may actually be saying about not just 'toxic' men, but HUMANITY in general. The 'toxic masculinity' myopic people hone in on (seemingly looking for it like a five year old looks for Waldo in one of those books...missing everything else in the process) is merely one flavor or form of a constant within the human condition-- conflict. And weak men with less thumos and gusto can be aggressive and mean when they feel they have the power to act in such a way. So can women. I don't think I need to cite examples. But too often people single out and focus in on masculine men because they are physically stronger than weaker men and women and have in part...due to that circumstance...been more dominant in society and in defining it historically. But that circumstance doesn't tell the whole story about human nature and violence as a whole nor should we act like it does by going to grab bag critical theory terms like 'toxic masculinity'; not if people wish to be critical in a way as to eliminate as many blind spots as possible. As though 'if only'' THAT ONE THING...the old school rabble-rousing boys club, whatever... was put to rest. THEN...then humanity would be on this road to real progress. To me, that's just shallow. The rest of humanity is hardly exempt from the same nasty instincts or urges and Peckinpah hints at that being the case. It's just that the stronger are more in a position to demonstrate these instincts and urges than the weak. Particularly within 'The Old West'. But that's why the film seems 'nihilistic'; he is, I believe, making a point. Virtually everyone (save for a few genuine caught-in-the-crossfire innocents on no side at all) is nasty. And I think this set-up allows for an accurate commentary on life to be made even if it's all stylized and embellished because it's art. This focus on masculinity as something we need to dispose of ("it's a pestilence!" - very Sunday school moralistic, there) for me evokes those sorts of utopian people (the Temperance Movement people at the film's beginning are actually coming to mind here) who naively think there would be no conflict if only...just only women (or men who weren't "macho") ran the world. It's certainly a proposition I think more thoughtful people more often than not view as dubious. So fixating on masculinity in the sense of it being a problem is to me a red herring in terms of mining real value from this film aside from taking in its aesthetics. This notion lacks humility about who and what we are as a species. The sentiment is an unearned hubris and furthermore I think a resentment that I feel is often directed at a certain type of man (due to him merely having power) more so than it is a real sincere solution to bettering the human condition in terms of mitigating the violence within it. I say this sincerely as a guy who was hardly the high school bully or big man on campus. But at the same time, I'd like to think I see a lot of the critics of those people for what they are at times. No less inherently arrogant. No less inherently cruel, even. (Indeed, sometimes it may in fact be weaker less 'toxic' men who are more cruel once they attain power due to a sense of vengeance and righteousness that can fuel their cruelty.) They're just...in a less developed society like 'the West'...in less of a position to exercise such arrogance and cruelty as freely. But we see glimpses of these weaker men who wouldn't survive in the West attaining power as the world modernizes. The more refined German diplomats surrounding General Mapache, for example. They're probably not as 'toxic' as The Bunch (and Mapache to comedic effect pretended to be as refined as them). But I doubt at the end of the day they're any less cruel. They seemingly had little issue with Angel being dragged to death using an automobile. These 'evolved' men are the types of men who got us into the First World War (right around the time this film takes place). Not gruff old school men like Pike who were more crude but at least had a tiny thread of old school honor. Elaborating further with respect to what Peckinpah illustrates about people... when Angel was being tortured, the women were laughing along with the men. Look at Angel's lover, for goodness' sake! Does that behavior not ring as true just as much as nasty brutish men rings true? And if so, are those women beyond "toxic masculinity" or "toxicity"? OF COURSE NOT! So again, just saying "toxic masculinity" is intellectually truncated and cheapens any broader more profound philosophical points this film might be making. And back to the children...children in this film actually participate in some of this violence. Look at who shoots Pike. Granted it was a defense measure but still...is there not perhaps a point being made about its innateness to humanity? To me, I think part of what this film is saying is that violence is an inevitable tragedy of the human condition that we had previously sanitized in older films. And EVEN the honorable cowboy...the paragon of human virtue... EVEN HE can't mitigate this nasty violence...that is... to the extent that he even exists or ever existed in real life. But to me, that statement Peckinpah might be making is not a knock on an 'old school' honor code or even a gruff, "boys will be boys" masculinity. Not at all. There just may be a certain futility at play baked into the cake for humans where even honor can't save you from a nasty outcome. And so violence needs to be recognized and taken seriously because it's not a game. That's positively Greek tragedy to me. Sad. Regretful. Messy. Horrifying. Traumatizing. But beautiful nonetheless when it becomes an art form. The way I see it, the violence itself that is shown is not a knock on honor. Even in the cases where the honor lead to more violence. The violence is just an honest commentary on humans in general (who glorify it and have a voyeuristic relationship with it). And as a consequence, there is no magic formula like honor that sews everything up real nice like you'd see in a 1940s film with Gary Cooper. (A similar futility from a different angle plays out in Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid.) Peckinpah I believe wanted that illusion done away with. With that all said, 'the honor code' was the one thing that was inspired coming from the lowlife protagonists in this film. In spite of its ineffectiveness at eliminating violence or even its propensity to escalate it in certain contexts. Regardless of how brief and ill-defined that code was, it was 'that one thing' about them people could respect and rightfully so, I think. And the film I think tries to make you feel that way about it with that famous walk scene near the end. And I think that's driven home even further by the fact that their honor did have the happy...if positively accidental effect... of leading to some redemption for those villagers (the only truly sympathetic people in the film). If there was any moral redemption in the film at all, it was those people's incidental salvation resulting from The Bunch living up to their code and fighting a futile fight 'in honor' of Angel.

I never even thought of the kids names in Unforgiven but I always did think the name William Money was referencing or nodding to the name Will Penny.

Boy, did this film feel like such a vanity project. Eastwood can do everything in this movie, and when he isn’t taming wild horses he’s taming the ladies.

Porque no te callas y das la pelicula

I'm not sure that any of you touched on the note that 'Arthur' with an accent is 'Author' - which fit the scheme of them being the New York Mammoths.

In the 80’s I looked up Mark Koenig in a Sonoma County phone book and called him and we talked for 30 minutes. At the time, I didn’t know he was in this movie. He was famous for Babe Ruth’s called shot in the 1932 World Series.

To suggest that "The Lion in Winter" is not a senior citizen film is absurd. And someone says "Harold and Maude" is? That's ridiculous!

The Last Emperor movie can beat any great movie in every generation.

The host = Scott Peterson/Jimmy Fallon. I strongly agree about Michael Moriarty's excellence. Malbec over merlot. A-4 A-4 T- 4 M-3 O-5

BORRING

I think the thing they missed most in this discussion is the singing of the great man himself! What about how great Al Jolson sang these songs for the movie?? He became one of the biggest singing stars on earth again after these movies! By the time these movies were made we had Bing Crosby and even Frank Sinatra but Jolson was able to capture the audience again and he was in his late 50s by this time! What a legend he was.

It is most gratifying to see the discussion that this has stimulated, and some strong views of opinion. As I may have mentioned previous we are strongly influenced by the time we are born into, or even where that may be. From as long as I can remember being born in 1950, and up until maybe near on the turn of the century, here in Australia, there was not one word in print, in the media, or any way in ref to the use of blackface being wrong, completely insulting and or anything else being mentioned as being anything bad about it.. Nor was there any refs to things that could be connected to it, laws of the times and practices like Blacks not allowed on stage etc. Some things are just totally wrong, such as that! The use of changing one's skin color to represent another goes back a long time, centuries in fact prior to the beginning of minstrels, generally said to be in the 1820's by a guy called Thomas Rice, but a guy called Fredericks something? I think a west Indian, light skinned used it in dramatic plays and things prior. It is generally claimed that Rice saw a black man drunk, a slave, or prisoner, or such? and mimicked a funny dance he did, The story varies to things like this Gentlemen ran on stage, in the raw when Rice did his act, and other, but like everything that dates back so far, specific details are impossible to substantiate. Lets look at it that this Rice Guy initially did do it as a mock, representation to a person whom history tells us was part of a people that in the United States then were considered inferior. THAT FACT IS WRONG! but then we have to look at it a bit further on. Blacking up or minstrels became a class act, it grew from basic ridicule to something that more than not represented a very entertaining product. OK this guy Rice might have for a while got laughs for mocking a black man, but audiences would have soon woke to that, and the effect would have worn off, because it would not have been too long before audiences would have looked at it, as he was mocking himself. Whatever color those audiences were. A good question that I have constantly asked myself even, of more recent times when the general representation of blackface, minstrels is one of horror full stop! is why did it happen at all? or why did not the reverse happen? Blacks whited up? Well often that did happen, and still does, such as with the Australian aboriginal. Both come back to the question that will always be within the preference of the individual were both or either done for insult, or for Entertainment purposes, which even being done for comedy. Is still intended for praise. The time the minstrel show developed was in a time of lots of immigration of Africans and others, and YES much of it at a time when they were, as much history suggests treated WRONG! but it to me is too simplistic to say that all that used the theatrical make up, the music, much of the mannerisms etc of blacks did it totally out of insult and to show that they were inferior to white people. Al Jolson himself recalled in about 1946? that he was the first person to use blackface in a main roll on Broadway, others might have in a small part, a butler or something? before. Even his manager of then, makes a point about Al getting a part in a big Broadway Show, and in blackface, one in fact to open a great new theater on Broadway - the IMMORTAL WINTER GARDEN! Looking back at it now, it easy to conclude so what?? That was his thing.Audiences were white anyway?? He was not really a black guy, It would all be accepted, but then even a representation of a non white person would have been, in fact was a problem. OF course a bit later non whites produced and did there own shows etc, quite justifiably so, helped very much by the endeavours and the MONEY of one Mr Al Jolson, and when a negro chorus sang with him in Big Boy 1925 it was not long before a fully racially mixed one was used in the great Historical production SHOWBOAT! OF course in the times all this was going on, things were not perfect, that is why there was depression and wars etc. There will always be those who will never try to meet on a level ground of understanding or compromise, and because of color and much other will always be adamant that they are right, and, or better than others. Of more recent times it is safer to go along with the general rhetoric that blackface was bad, a total insult, something that made blacks look idiots etc etc!! Even the slightest research into it, indicates that this is not totally true in every instance. Take for example the sequence of Mammy in the Jolson Story, YES if viewed in an out of context way, and just focusing on the fact Parks is wearing blackface, and clouding one with all the negativeness out and about it now, It would take away the real possibility of enjoyment! BUT not if viewed in the context of the plot of the movie, Here is his big Broadway chance, and I don't care what anybody thinks but the great gestures and all Larry implies, and that thrilling JOLSON voice never fails to give me goose bumps! YES it is not reality. Mammy came out in 1920 But it does not matter, nor does it that he is in blackface, but either way, like with Rockabye and others done later with out it, the thrill to me is just the same! I think that even if Jolie did not do blackface, or not as much things would be much difference, he is seen now as the Elvis, the Micheal Jackson the Mick Jagger and anybody else that is still thrown up of more recent times HE is anyone of them of 70 or more years ago, THAT IS WHERE the real problem lies of LONG AGO!! TODAY'S MOGULS, big business is NOT GOING to promote something, or body, that is not contemporary or more recent! THE FIRST THOUGHT IS OBVIOUS THAT MARKET IS DEAD! THEY DON'T BUY ANYTHING! I personally don't think there is any need for disclaimers etc, if people want to they will find out about the blackface thing, the NOW angle without going too far, the real truth they will have to dig somewhat deeper. If they are a necessity instead of putting things into a general broad context it was totally wrong etc etc! Which is a generalized one, note the specifics of the movie whatever that does particularly indicate it is being discriminatory to certain peoples etc?

This is outstanding. Super informative. Thank you for doing this.