Post a response to this discussion thread
That's what the whole movie feels like -- him trying really hard to tell an epic story. It isn't very exciting and I lost interest a couple of times, and just as I feared, there's a little too much "Forrest Gump" to it. Overall, it was enjoyable, but it wasn't quite the wondrous tale that "Edward Scissorhands" was or anywhere near as bizarre as "Beetlejuice" or a tenth as thrilling as any of the "Batmans" or as surrealistically amusing as "Mars Attacks" or as peculiarly honest as "Ed Wood." And the ending is quite predictable -- I don't think he really even tries to hide it. It's not his best work -- it's just better than most peoples' work this year. I suspect it will appeal to a lot of older people (I don't think any of his movies have ever appealed to older people before).
And here's yet another case of the nude female breast double standard. The nude woman in this movie is very young, busty and attractive -- so naturally they only shoot her from behind, from a distance, through obscured lenses, very very briefly, as if they were trying to avoid an R- rating. Yet Diane Keaton and Helen Mirren have straightforward topless scenes in "Something's Gotta Give" and "Calendar Girls" respectively (heck, "CG" has a lot more than ONE scene and Keaton is actually full frontal naked) and they easily earn a PG-13. What gives?
As for "Stuck On You"... man, I've pretty much already forgotten that movie! So I'm going to have to say, no, there are no hairgel type scenes. I don't really remember anything that happen people talking or rolling in the aisles.
"Love Don't Cost A Thing's" screening was at the same time as "Stuck On You." I'll probably get around to it this weekend for completeness's sake (plus, it appears I may come up a little short of 200 this year somehow...) And I see "Girl with a Pearl Earring" tonight.
Post a response to this discussion thread