- Awards
- 1
It was overall very mediocre. Also, I can't accept Adam Devine as a romantic lead, even for Rebel Wilson...
Somehow I enjoyed Marcia Cross though.
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Somehow I enjoyed Marcia Cross though.
- Awards
- 27
I wonder if it's possible to successfully spoof the spoof-genre.
- Awards
- 27
- Awards
- 14
The other night I watched THE BEGUILED from 1971 with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page. I had been meaning to see it for a long while. I absolutely loved it. It's a slow dreamy/nightmarish southern gothic tale. Set around the Civil War in a creaky old plantation house. Clint plays a Yankee soldier who finds himself at a seminary for young girls being nursed back to health before he can be turned over to the Confederate soldiers for imprisonment. While recuperating he flirts with and manipulates the girls and their teacher. It all becomes a bit of a pot boiler and ends horribly for Clint.
The film is dreamy and ethereal in parts and then nightmarish in others. There is a subplot with a vague story of an incestuous relationship between the head teacher played by Geraldine Page and her brother who is missing, presumed dead. It's not stated in the film but I got the idea that Page had murdered him and buried him on the property. She seems to equally yearn for him, and be disgusted at the thought of him. This plot line seems to add to the tension in the film. All the women in the house become beguiled by this young handsome soldier. All that repressed sexual tension bubbling over into other things. It's a wonderful film.
After watching I decided to watch the remake from last year starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell in Page and Eastwood's roles respectively. This remake was directed by Sophia Coppola and just seems so utterly unnecessary. On the one hand it seems in parts to be a simple copy and paste remake. On the other hand, it leaves out all the more interesting bits of the original. The incest subplot is completely dropped. The black slave girl from the original doesn't exist in the remake. In the original, Clint and her scenes are the ones in which we learn more about who he is. The slave girl also shows a stronger female role and the film looses something in loosing her. The remake also completely does away with the flirtation of the Yankee soldier with a 12 year old girl. In the original he kisses her on the mouth and the girl becomes innocently infatuated with him.
The remake isn't terrible. It's just not as good. I like Kidman a lot as an actress and she does a great job in her scenes. I just felt that the remake was weaker and was trying in a way to tell the story from a strong female view point. Which isn't really what the story is.
It's interesting that when the original was released the studio didn't know how to sell it, and so it was a flop. They had a film where Clint Eastwood wasn't the winner or the hero. And he's in this film with all these women. There's no real action, it's not really what his fans wanted. So they sort of sold it as a sexy thriller horror, which it is more than.
I would say that the remake had some of the same problems as far as selling it. It was presented in the trailers as much more of a gothic horror than it really is.
The original is a beautiful film in every way. See it if you can, the remake is only ok.
The film is dreamy and ethereal in parts and then nightmarish in others. There is a subplot with a vague story of an incestuous relationship between the head teacher played by Geraldine Page and her brother who is missing, presumed dead. It's not stated in the film but I got the idea that Page had murdered him and buried him on the property. She seems to equally yearn for him, and be disgusted at the thought of him. This plot line seems to add to the tension in the film. All the women in the house become beguiled by this young handsome soldier. All that repressed sexual tension bubbling over into other things. It's a wonderful film.
After watching I decided to watch the remake from last year starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell in Page and Eastwood's roles respectively. This remake was directed by Sophia Coppola and just seems so utterly unnecessary. On the one hand it seems in parts to be a simple copy and paste remake. On the other hand, it leaves out all the more interesting bits of the original. The incest subplot is completely dropped. The black slave girl from the original doesn't exist in the remake. In the original, Clint and her scenes are the ones in which we learn more about who he is. The slave girl also shows a stronger female role and the film looses something in loosing her. The remake also completely does away with the flirtation of the Yankee soldier with a 12 year old girl. In the original he kisses her on the mouth and the girl becomes innocently infatuated with him.
The remake isn't terrible. It's just not as good. I like Kidman a lot as an actress and she does a great job in her scenes. I just felt that the remake was weaker and was trying in a way to tell the story from a strong female view point. Which isn't really what the story is.
It's interesting that when the original was released the studio didn't know how to sell it, and so it was a flop. They had a film where Clint Eastwood wasn't the winner or the hero. And he's in this film with all these women. There's no real action, it's not really what his fans wanted. So they sort of sold it as a sexy thriller horror, which it is more than.
I would say that the remake had some of the same problems as far as selling it. It was presented in the trailers as much more of a gothic horror than it really is.
The original is a beautiful film in every way. See it if you can, the remake is only ok.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
This looks like something I would enjoy. The trailer starts with a bitch slap!
- Awards
- 14
See the original first. Then watch the trailer of the remake.
- Awards
- 27
This seems to be a new trend, I think? Velvet Buzzsaw was also the whole movie in a trailer, and even those few minutes were awful.
I knew I shouldn't watch it but I did it anway. Sometimes I really hate myself.
- Awards
- 18
Interesting, thanks. I haven't seen either film but I recently listened to a podcast review of the second Beguiled where the reviewer also much prefers the first version, which he refers to as "the Segal version".
(To be tediously annoyingly pedantic, the second version isn't strictly speaking a remake of the first; rather, they're both adaptations of the original novel.)
The review wangs on a bit, but if you can be bothered, about four minutes in, he starts comparing the second version with the first:
- Awards
- 14
Yea I was aware that both are adaptations of the novel, originally titled The Painted Devil. Coppola's version just isn't as good. On reading up on her version my suspicions were proven right. She had wanted to make a more female empowered version. Which to me seems ridiculous as in the novel and the Segal version the women basically have the power in the end. That's the film. The Yankee is beguiled by the women and the women at the same time beguiled by him. The Segal film does better at showing both views though. I just listened to that review and pretty much agree with Kermode. It makes no sense to remove Halle the slave girl from the story. He, and I, both pointed out that she was a strong character, a strong female character and one that opened up the story a lot. She had some of the best lines in the Segal film and Coppola's film feels a bit empty with her not there. Coppola mentioned she didn't want to include her because she wasn't a strong representation of women or a good role model for young women, or words to that effect which I feel is a bit stupid. As if a slave couldn't be wise and strong? The very fact of her being a slave makes her invalid as a strong female? It didn't suit her 2017 view of feminism therefor it didn't happen.
It's funny that in wanting to make a more female empowered adaptation she had to cut out probably the strongest female in the source material.
- Awards
- 27
An original concept that works well for short sketches, but it's too bizarre to support a whole movie.
They can't choose between playing it straight and juvenile/oversexed comedy.
There's also a bit of drama lurking in the background that was ready to become a dark comedy.
I'm truly puzzled.
- Awards
- 18
That's what I like about them! I've not heard of this film. It looks interesting - thanks!
- Awards
- 21
Co-starring Adriana!
- Awards
- 24
Tonight I had a double feature show at home: Two movies from last year that earned big reviews, and even some awards. I´m totally disappointed with them. One is "Hereditary", another proof of how clueless Toni Collette is for picking up good scripts. It´s more a disgusting experience than a horror flick or human drama. And the cast is great, including Ann Dowd and Gabriel Byrne. What went wrong?
Oh Toni Toni...When are you going to do "Muriel´s Wedding II"?
(It couldn´t be worse than this or "Mamma Mia II"!)
The other one still is more disappointing at least to me. I´m talking about the gay favorite of 2018 "Call By Your Name". It should better be titled "Call Me Bi". I only liked the Italy scenery. Both leads are pathetically unexpressive and their characters are even more pathetic and undefined, and the writing is as outdated as Miss Piggy´s fake eyelashes. I didn´t expect this from such a talented writer as James Ivory but hey, I think the director here is the one to blame.
I didn´t buy the love story and most characters seem to be stupid in one or other way, which makes the film itself rather stupid too. I hope somebody here could enjoy these two movies but I didn´t. Heck, I even liked more "Annabelle Creation", watched last night, and that is saying something...!
Oh Toni Toni...When are you going to do "Muriel´s Wedding II"?
(It couldn´t be worse than this or "Mamma Mia II"!)
The other one still is more disappointing at least to me. I´m talking about the gay favorite of 2018 "Call By Your Name". It should better be titled "Call Me Bi". I only liked the Italy scenery. Both leads are pathetically unexpressive and their characters are even more pathetic and undefined, and the writing is as outdated as Miss Piggy´s fake eyelashes. I didn´t expect this from such a talented writer as James Ivory but hey, I think the director here is the one to blame.
I didn´t buy the love story and most characters seem to be stupid in one or other way, which makes the film itself rather stupid too. I hope somebody here could enjoy these two movies but I didn´t. Heck, I even liked more "Annabelle Creation", watched last night, and that is saying something...!
- Awards
- 25
I remember seeing this as a young boy and thinking it was fantastic! Your review has me tempted to watch it again.