MovieChat Forums > Todo sobre mi madre (2000) Discussion > Ridiculous vastly over-rated National En...

Ridiculous vastly over-rated National Enquirer-fed tragedy

posted 19 years ago by Rooster99
55 replies | jump to latest

Although this movie was well acted, the story is simply far too incredible to promote any sort of sympathy for the characters. Every character has a trait more common to outlandish soap operas than to dramatic films; a half-man, half-woman cross-dressing heroin-addicted AIDS-infested prostitute, an aging lesbian diva in love with a heroin-addicted actress young enough to be her granddaughter, a suffering wife of a completely addled husband with Alzeimer's estranged from her daughter, a tragic mother of a recently deceased 17-year old son, another half-man half-woman prostitute who spends the better part of the film speaking of his/her job-related exploits, and a preposterous nun who sleeps with the most unlikely of "men" to not only get pregnant but to also contract HIV. The cast of characters is just so ridiculous as to only be found in a very unrealistic episode of "Days of Our Lives".

It is obvious that Aldomovar was just going for the "Cannes Film Festival storyline", whose prize recipients always includes such improbable relationships and destructive character flaws. Why can't the story simply be about a woman trying to deal with the death of her son? No, that would not have won any accolades, so the entire cast of "very left of mainstream" characters had to be thrown in so that every reviewer in our Politically Correct times could not possibly pan it for fear of being labeled a bigot. How can the audience possibly accept that a nun presumably devoted enough to her order as to accept a dangerous humanitarian mission to war-torn El Salvador, would sleep with a known man/woman prostitute who has been a heroin addict for 15 years? What happened to her vows? What happened to her common sense? What in the world was the attraction????? The site of "Lola" at the nun's funeral near the end of the movie was more pathetic than tragic, no woman on the planet would possibly consider such a mate (nor would they even likely consider that person a man). It was simply so impossible to conceive that it was ridiculous.

Finely acted but preposterous tripe.

R.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Perhaps the OP still lives in a cave in the midwest.

[–] jujide 19 years ago

I agree. I entered into this movie with high expectations after watching Talk to Her. But I just could not relate to the charaters so I could not feel much sympathy towards them. It was hard for me to buy Penelope Cruz in the role of a nun. That has got to be the world's most beautiful nun. But o.k., I guess she had a calling. But to throw it all away and have sex with that she-man is impossible to believe. And how ridiculous is it that both Penelope and the main character, who she had just met, just coincidentally happened to have sex and become impregnated by the same loser? It must really be a small world where the men are hard to find!

Then, it's as if every character in the movie is talented enough to just fill in when needed for that play "Streetcar Named Deire". Ridiculous!

Sorry folks, look at it objectively and you'll see, this is one bad movie.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Perhaps life in Barcelona is a little bit different to life in America.
Both of the haters seem to have a problem with the concept of transexualism, and very little understading of the nature of lust. Homophobia isn't all that conducive to rational thought processes.
Perhaps that's the root of their dislike for what is a fairly straightforward Almodovar movie.
Maybe they should check out a few of his Banderas movies for a more simplistic approach.

Incidentally, only one person fills in for the absent junkie in the play. And explains how she knew the role so well. Why exaggerate when you're slamming the movie for exaggerating?
It must be so wonderful for you, living in the 19th century, but for the rest of us time moves relentlessly forward.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

If that movie represents the future, I have to say that I much prefer the past.

R.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

No doubt Doris and Rock will be delighted to hear that.

[–] jujide 19 years ago

Squelcho is a typical America hater. A problem with transexulism? With lust? A homphobe? Where did you get this other than your own ignorance? I have NO problem with any of those issues. It was still a terrible movie however. And YOU have a problem with that.

Maybe you're sleeping with Almodovar.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

jujide is a typical troll

Liking European movies doesn't preclude enjoying American movies. Anymore than it precludes enjoying Japanese or Korean movies. Anyone in possession of a grain of logic would be capable of understanding that. Anyone who isn't a paranoid isolationist would be capable of grasping it. But not the trollsome jujide.
Two short planks are usually a few braincells shy of rational thought. Keep trying sweetykins.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

OK, I give up. Who are Doris and Rock?

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Doris Day and Rock Hudson.
One gay icon and one very closeted and very horny gay man. They were the leading lights of mainstream American family fluff for a generation. The McCarthy generation.

Sometimes a director shows life as it is in his/her part of the world. Sometimes it's codified in a subliminal fashion to slide past the Hays Office.
You pays yer money and you takes yer chance.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

Why in the world do you consider Doris Day a gay icon? The hilariously named Rock Hudson was a closet flamer, but Doris Day????? She was married at least 4 times (to 4 different men) if memory serves me correctly.

R.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Iconography has little or nothing to do with a person's sexuality. As can be seen from the fact that darling Rock was a major hetero hearthtrob until his closet finally overflowed.
What some people see as cutesy and folksy, others might see as high camp.
It's a matter of interpretaion.

If you watch the movie this board is supposedly referencing, you might notice that the leading woman is a heterosexual woman whose child dies in a stupid road accident. How gay is that?

The fact that ambivalence is not regarded as a disease in Spain might well be the reason that Almodovar's films make money.
Why anyone who is secure in their own sexuality would possibly seek to denigrate someone else's, is beyond logic. What's to prove, and why?
Homophobic bluster is usually an attempt to negate some inverted sexual arousal felt by the poor victimised heterosexual viewer. Victim of their own arousal.
Perhaps you think the troll's analysis was spot on? Perhaps I woud beg to differ. Methinks he doth protest too much, and far too loudly. Probably the pressure of his closet is overwhelming the poor insecure creature.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

Interesting. But it wasn't homophobia which engendered my original post. It was the impossibility of the situation, it was frankly far too off-the-wall to be believable. It seemed contrived for shock value, something to spice up the story unnecessarily. I just can't see it happening, it goes completely against Cruz' character in the story. Also, it is exceptionally difficult to see the attraction Cruz had for the she-man. Why in the world would Cruz pick him/her as her mate? It is just not credible, and was obviously added as a National Enquirer-type plot ploy to make the story juicier.

Penelope Cruz was a social working nun, she understood perfectly well the ailments which were ravaging her charges, and she obviously had some very strongly held Christian beliefs (she was, after all, a nun). Yet in the story, she still not only has sex with a caricature of a man, but also is impregnated and contracts HIV. She would have known both were very strong possibilities given her chosen profession and at the very least would have forced him/her to use protection (if we accept she went ahead with pre-marital sex even though it is against the teachings of the church, I guess we have to accept that contraception would also be acceptable). I just don't buy it, that is the last person on the planet she would have broken her vows to be with, you cannot even explain it with lust. Just look at him/her, he/she is a broken dying repulsive figure who is to be pitied. I feel quite confident that Almovodar had a script, and then said to himself, okay, how can I make the story more fantastic? And then he added peculiar character traits to every character. It was a sham, nothing more.

R.

[–] natalie_margarita20 19 years ago

Hello R.,

I disagree. Almodovar's earlier films have even crazier plot lines and he has been using transsexuals, junkies, S/M nymphs and all that since his first film. I think it's more likely that he had a script and tamed it down so that it would attract a bigger audience (which it did). In any case, why are you so obsessed with the film's credibility?? It's a film, it's not suppose to be real or even seem real... And for the record, there ARE people who find transsexuals attractive. I've met a few nice ones myself...

Natalie

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

I am concerned with its credibility because this movie is a drama. This film is not some Godzilla-sci-fi adventure, it is a story about people. Let me give you an example. Let's say you are watching a spy thriller. In the plot, the good guy find out the bad guy is going to be in New York City. So the good guy flies there and start walking around Times Square. In the next scene, he spots the bad guy walking down the street (by sheer chance) and captures him. Would that bother you? It would bother me because it just wouldn't happen. New York City is the most densely populated city in North America with over 8 million inhabitants, and covers an area of more than 800 square kilometers. Having the bad guy spotted by chance is just poor writing. It is the lazy way out, it would never happen.

The same thing happens in this movie. The entire plot line with Penelope Cruz being impregnated by the she-man is just crazy. She knows his entire history, she works with diseased and dying people every day, and she has taken a vow of chastity for her order. If she were to "fall off the wagon", the only reason I can think of for Almodovar to have chosen the she-man as her mate is for shock value, pure and simple, something readers of the National Enquirer would find appropriate.

And you may be right. Almodovar's earlier films may have been even crazier, I have no idea not having seen any of them. However, if the stories were written solely for the purpose of shock value, I doubt I would enjoy them. You never know until you see them though, this one may have just rubbed me the wrong way. It is unfair to classify a director's entire career as "too tabloid-like for me" based on a single film.

R.

[–] mstroupe 19 years ago

Yes, all of these reasons is why I enjoy all the Almodovar movies I've seen. Most mainstream American movies that come out have the same boring, predictable plotlines, perhaps with a "twist," for the audience's awe and delight (think M Night whateverhisnameis). And some "inde" movies that are character driven are boring enough ("natural" enough) to put a hyperactive child to sleep.

Something I love about Almodovar is his willingness (and his actors') to take a normal, often tragic character driven story (say, a hard working single mother who has lost her son), and make it absolutely ridiculous. It's more interesting that way. He doesn't hit you with "and now here's the message about life," but he weaves it into his weird, improbable plotlines and insane but intriguing characters. But those same plotlines and characters are never without a much more profound message hidden underneath. All About My Mother is about...mothers. It's about women and children and men and women, and acting onstage and off, being authentic, etc...it's my favorite of his.

Try seeing a few others of Almodovar's; Talk to Her is awesome, so is Bad Education, but the earlier ones are great too: What Have I Done To Deserve This?, and Woman on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown are a few of my favorites. Just let Almodovar pull you into his world from the beginning, and I think you'll have a better time.

By the way, since when were movies made to be realistic? Improbability is what movies thrive on.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

OK, I'll check out some of his other flicks. Knowing ahead of time that they are sometimes surreal will probably help. And movies don't have to be realistic (Star Wars, the Alien movies, Batman Begins, etc.) but I just don't like shoddy writing. See my example in the previous post. When movies have gapping plot holes, it really takes away from the story. I hate when characters wake from a dream (what a cop-out), guess a password (painfully stupid), or engage in fantastically improbable behaviour (Cruz sleeping with the she-man).

R.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

It's interesting that you find the plot devices unbelievable in this movie, especially as regards what you continue to derisively refer to as the she-man, when you have previous posts extolling the virtues of Arthur, Braveheart, Gladiator and Traffic, all of which contain enough ludicrous plot devices to drive any halfway observant rational human to distraction.
Gibson's ridiculous accent and revisionism in Braveheart, Michael Douglas's coincidental junkie offspring in Traffic, the miniskirted nubiles (yo Xena!, yo Herc!) in Arthur, and the totally un-Roman behaviour in Gladiator make them as risibly manipulative as any other Schlockbuster that dribbles out of the lazy end of the Hollywood machine.
All of which leads me back to the conclusion that you'll happily suspend your disbelief for a blandly overblown Hollywood soap, but not for a slightly homo-centric European ensemble affair. I wonder why that is.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jujide 19 years ago

Methinks Squido doth protest too much. A problem with your own sexuality perhaps? Why else do you turn this into a "he/she doesn't like this movie so he/she is a homophobe?" argument. I didn't like this movie. Period. I don't need a reason and don't need to defend myself to you, an imbecile. Now get over it and climb back under your rock.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Read your previous post, oh saintly perfect jujide.
And ask yourself whether you'd like to be pot or kettle for this one.
You're a troll. And a dull one at that.

Why should I care if you think I'm gay. Is it so wrong? Would it make me an unperson in your petty little world? I hope so, cavedweller.
I don't rate your opinions about film, so your gassing about life, sexuality or your hllow logic is unlikely to cause me any sleepless nights. The world's full of airheaded windbags like you. Next!

[–] jujide 19 years ago

God Bless you if you're gay. If that's what you are and you're happy with it, then I'm happy for you. Honestly. You see, I could care less about your sexual persuasion. But you are saying loads about your character from your assinine posts (just like Penelope dragged down this movie for me with her utter lack of, and duplicity of, character). You think that I live in America and that this makes me a Conservative, Republican, Anti-Gay, Anti-Abortion, etc.....this is your own warped view of what America stands for. You assume that because I dislike this movie that I am narrow minded and self righteous. Unfortunately, this only goes to show how sensitive you are to your own sexuality. You need help, Speedo, for baselessly prejudging people that you do not know.

As for All About My Mother, I just couldn't relate to any of the characters or situations that they found themselves in...does that make me a bad person? Are there any acclaimed movies that you know are good, but they just don't do it for you? Isn't it a stetch to say that if you do not like those movies then it reflects something negative about your character?.

Now go and get a life, Speed Baby. Get out there and mingle with the crowd, smoke something wild, lay some pipe...whatever turns you on. Just get off my case because you're beginning to bore me, and you're wasting my time.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

And for those who've seen more than the one Almodovar movie, perhaps they feel slightly more at ease with a director who embraced transvestism and homosexuality from his very first film onwards.
Quite why anyone should find it bizarre or unusual to see those themes recurring in his subsequent films is way beyond me. His rep is built on the upfront sexuality portrayed in his movies. Maybe they forgot to tell America about that?
It doesn't take that much effort to type his name into Google and read a few bio pages.

Antonio Banderas didn't object to getting his career off the ground playing crossdressing queens in trashy Almodovar movies. And yet somehow, millions of women can still drool over his macho manly wonderfulness.
The reason? Most human beings are capable of separating fantasy and reality.
Nowhere in the synopsis or promo blurb for this movie have I ever seen the immortal phrase "based on a true story". Consequently, I'll treat it as fiction. Just like 99% of all the films ever made.
And I won't try to overwrite my prejdices onto the director's imagination, because he's not going to remake it on my say-so.

Personally, I can't watch trite nonsense like Star Wars or Harry Potter or Hobbitville because one film was enough. Yet somehow, millions of people will watch endless iterations of the same plot without hesitation. Good for them. I won't be screaming from the rooftops that they're poor deluded fools, because I just don't care enough to bother. Why should I?

All of these "worst film ever", and "totally implausible plotline" types seem to exist in a monochrome world, where their own facile opinions count for far more than the thousands or millions of ordinary human beings who beg to disagree.
Would that they could resist the urge to convince the world of the errors of its ways. But then, how would they ever get the attention they seek?
Hey! why not make a film about their wonderful, excitement-filled lives?
Ready when you are Mr De Bauchery!

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That was one of the most amusing little IMDB tiffs I have seen in ages! And to think I started it all... <sniff>. In response to your original reply squelcho, yes, I thought all of those movies were terrific; "King Arthur, Braveheart, Gladiator and Traffic". Thoroughly enjoyable, kept me glued to my seat. Much to my artsy film-festival-going famliy's eternal disgrace, I go to see movies strictly to be entertained. I liked Godzilla! I even liked Armageddon! I normally don't go and see movies which are depressing, morose, or otherwise sullen. The fact that I saw "All About my Mother" was strictly by accident, they were giving it away for 50 Francs at the gas station with a fill-up!

I rarely read film reviews because reviewers aren't concerned with entertainment. They want to see movies which affect the human condition, which delve into our emotional state of being, movies which are character-driven as opposed to plot driven. It doesn't matter if they are even remotely interesting, or even if anything happens, just as long as they are artsy with little or no action. That's fine, my parents, brother and sister will all love them, and talk about them endlessly. Me, I am happy as a clam watching "The Usual Suspects", "Batman Begins", or "Equilibrium". Sometimes I even go and see movies ONLY for the special effects (imagine that, I must be a heathen)!

I have to say "All About My Mother" made me uneasy the entire way through. It was not my normal fare (could you guess?), I found it mildly interesting, and thoroughly implausible. That does not make me a homophobe, frankly I could care less about anyone's sexuality, but it might make me an art-film-ophobe. Having lived for years in France and having had to put up with artsy Palme D'Or flicks one after the other, I can say I am thoroughly sick of them. The French have little budget for special effects, so they have no choice but to think up wacky emotional dramas usually involving 60-year old men and 10 year-old girls. They are all the same, some fantastic tragedy, some incredibly crazy sexual hang-up, some ultra-depressing plotline..... human condition? The directors in France must be on downers if that is what they think is the state of humanity! I have actually heard a French director say that if someone did not like his movie, that person was a peasant. And that is the prevailing attitude amongst the arthouse crowd in France; if you liked Armageddon, you are an uneducated boor, if you didn't, you had to rave about the latest nonsensical tripe some drugged out of-the-moment director is passing off as art.

Vive la difference!

R.

[–] shivakumar-jayashankar 19 years ago

Fantastic debate. I still can't decide who I agree with more, but all 3 of you people have some very valid, thought provoking viewpoints.

Thank you for speaking your mind out, even if you were just lashing out at each other.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Painting with a broad brush invites ridicule.
I am quite capable of enjoying junk movies and what some might refer to as art movies. I can make up my own mind and form my own opinions without being spoonfed.
So it matters little to me if it's Bruce Willis unrealistically kicking the crap out of 200 heavily armed psychos in under two hours, or a few women chatting about sexuality and desire. A well made film doesn't have to conform to anyone's stereotypical template in order to appeal to others with different viewpoints, experiences, cultures, and attitudes.
Why should I denigrate a film purely on the basis of a character's sexuality?
Wouldn't that show me up as a petty narrow-minded individual, incapable of living and letting live?
I also lived in France for a decade, but strangely I never felt threatened by French culture, nor did I miss the overblown Hollywooden reliance on explosions and braindead gumchewing shortcuts. I could easily go see the usual blockbluster garbage at any big city multiplex. Same as I could anywhere on the planet.
I choose to seek out films that don't adhere to the homogenous blob theory of filmmaking. I don't think All About My Mother is the greatest thing since fresh air, but neither do I consider it to be unwatchable dreck, or feel compelled to grasp at thin straws to justify such an opinion.
If you don't like it, why not say from the off that you resent the European mindset because it doesn't throw zillions of dollars at the sfx?
Personally, as an observer of humanity, I think there's a great deal of resonance in this movie. Especially if you've spent time working in Spain and enjoy the post-Franco fiesta. If you had lived under the heel of that mad old fart for 40 years, you'd be gagging for a little freedom of expression too.
Cultural imperialism sucks. Using wholly bogus devices to express it, does you no favours at all.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

Ah ha, I believe you've hit the nail on the head! It's the ultra-Freedom of Expression in Spanish films which is pushing credibility right over the edge. I should have guessed, Hemmingway was right all along.....

R.

[–] vlvlsect 19 years ago

I don't see what is so implausible about Cruz's character being attracted to and having sex with a transvestite. I mean, haven't plenty of Catholic priests who have taken a vow of chastity blah di blah also molested countless boys? Do you find that implausible. Hitler created a total death machine that killed 11 million people in roughly six years. Twenty million Russians died in the same amount of time? These number, while *beep* incredible are true. Now I know this is a little off point, and I'm not making a socio-political statement here, but just saying that many many things happen, every day/month/year, etc that defy rational explanation. Evolution! My god, its amazing and hard to wrap one's head around, but it happens (IDers don't bother replying). *beep* our government finds it responsible to cut welfare, education, medicare programs while touting compassionate conservatism. Our government and other governments IGNORE genoocide all over the world, but find time to take on the "War on Christmas." *beep* Almodovar couldn't come up with that! The point is, the world is not a rational place. I disagree with your plot assessment of All About My Mother. Its one of my fave Almodovar films. I latched on to the characters immediately. If anything, if you are able to engage in the filmgoer's "willing suspension of disbelief" in fantasy/action films, can't you do the same for a film that seems somewhat absurd but at the same time deals with interesting issues? I suppose I'm confused.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

So how long ya been reading the National Enquirer then Rooster?
Been abducted by any hot aliens lately?
Did you enjoy the probes?

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

What? An anal-probe joke????!?? I'm flabbergasted! Particularly in light of your staunch defense of this film, and calling anyone who would deem to disparage it a homophobe! You disappoint me Squelcho, up until now you had been making a fairly reasonable argument for the merits of Almodovar's films versus the typical Hollywood blockbuster (Hobbitville, ha!), yet now you have sunk to the most common and typical trait of IMDB posters, insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you, usually by making thinly veiled homophobic allusions to their apparent sexual tendencies. I hate to disapoint you, but I won't take the bait. I'm heterosexual, get over it.

I didn't like the film, but am willing to try out some other Almovodar movies based on other people's responses. I probably won't like them either because I freely admit I tend to like movies with lots of special effects, although it is a shame that those types of movies almost always sacrifice well-written scripts for SFX... But then again, if I didn't see the occasional art-house flick, I wouldn't be able to argue endlessly about movies on the Internet! That is why the Internet was invented, right Holden?

<Sigh>.

R.

[–] jujide 19 years ago

So your point is that beautiful nuns having sex with transvestites, getting AIDS and dying is just as plausible as priests having sex with children. News Flash, call the Times, another scandal rocks the Catholic Church. Beautiful nuns (of which there are unquestionably few being that the average age of a nun is about 60) are dropping dead from having sex with transestites and giving rise to a whole new population of fatherless and motherless babies. Tell the Pope folks, so he can hand down another edict.

Certainly a beautiful nun having sex with a transvestite, developing AIDS and dying is not out of the realm of possibility. I'm sure it's probably even happened once or twice. I can suspend any disbelief about this. But must I like this movie because of this or be labeled a homophobe?

Talk to Her is one of my favorite all time movies. I am not a prude. I want to reflect on the movie I have just seen and wake up in the morning remembering how beautiful it was and to savor those memories. For me, that's what I live for when watching a movie.

Vlvlsect, many ugly things do indeed happen on a daily basis that defy rational explanation. Perhaps this is the point of the movie. But remember that we are just talking about a movie here. We are being taken where the film wants to take us. We view the ugliness that the filmaker wants us to view. He alone selected this mess that defies rational explanation, and I alone select whether it works for me. Maybe you can now go and find a porthole into John Malkovitch's brain so that you can defy rationality and derive your entertainment.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

two by two

So who said the probes were anal?
Not me.
Your assumptions are down to YOUR mental processes.
And who used the hysterical National Enquirer analogy to create a troll thread?
Not me.
I particularly enjoyed the sweeping dismissal of all European films for using imagination instead of sfx budget overload.
Obvious answer. Stick to watching explosions and mind numbing hollywooden gloop.
Why blame Almodovar for your family's awful taste in movies?
Need another petard?

As for the genius jujide's rationale, why did you suggest that I was sleeping with Pedro Aldomovar? Did you not have anything better to do than attack the poster, instead of the post? Trolltastic, booby. Here's a lollipop.
Your bland hypocrisy is as dull as the rest of your cretinous logic.
So you prefer virtual necrophilia to homsexuality? The level of suspension of disbelief required for Talk to Her is no more or less than this movie.
Comatose women are so compliant. Next step, the morgue. Some like it cold.

[–] jujide 19 years ago

Yea....everyone that likes Talk to Her is into virtual necrophilia. Are you some kind of moron? Are you saying that you need to be a homosexual to enjoy All About My Mother? Are you retarded?

You know...you are a real pea brain.

[–] gaelicguy 19 years ago

I haven't slogged through every post in this thread, but I have to agree with Rooster's view. I thought it was a very well-acted film, but, more often than not, I thought that I was watching a Spanish novella, which oddly enough, just made the news last weekend. Seems that they are hugely popular in the Latino community in the US and, unlike the American soaps, they are evening prime-time fare.

The thrust of the report is how American programmers are following their lead, as if American prime time soaps never existed. Guess we've forgotten the American TV landscape of the early 1980s, such as it was.

Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot.

[–] squelcho 19 years ago

Poor deluded jujide-troll.
I didn't say anything about EVERYONE. I was referring to YOUR dumbass revisionist logic and bland sneering hypocrisy.
The fact that your memory is so short as to absolve you from responsibility for your epigrammatic idiocy is cutely ironic for someone as blatantly pseudo-intellectual as you.
Your smug pomposity suits you down to the ground. Your vacuous opinion isn't a fact, and pretending it is doesn't make it so. It's just the sound of hot air escaping.
Read the whole thread, eejut.
Including your lame attempts at slamming.
Then try getting a life.

[–] jujide 19 years ago

Here we go again. The idiot Squelcho trying to impress with his vocabulary and limited pea sized brain. Dear readers, please do this...click on Squelcho's highlighted name and follow his brilliant analysis of other movies (or shall we just call these the "lowlights" of these various threads). I submit to you, Dear Readers, that El Squelcho is the lame "pseudo-intellectual" in that he obviously feels compelled to whip out the old dic-tionary whenever he responds to my unflawed reasoning. How else can you explain his 2nd grade vocabulary when he comments on other movies? He suddenly learns a whole bunch of new words every time he er...responds to my sound thrashing of his inarticulate musings.

Go ahead...whip out that big 'ol dic-tionary now you phony imbecile...and try to once again convince us all that you are morally superior by using big words and lame arguments.

[–] humanalltoohuman 18 years ago

I have no idea which exact post I'm replying to, but anyway.

To make some points...

God, yes, it's absurd. Simple as that. But not as absurd as many would make out.

now, if one is able to retain that "mechinism" that stops us from catagorizing people via a pre-existing notion.... por ejemplo... A nun is a nun is a nun is a nun is a.... you got it.... person. Wonderful, really, that some people are just born pure of heart and giblet. Never to pursue a path with doubt, or mistaken expectations. (ahem)

Anyway, whatever.. You're right, its absurd... but never SENSATIONALIST. sometimes things need to be inflated and blown apart before we can guess what they were made of in the first place... y´know, 'neath the greasepaint and pose stands the beast with appointments (or a squirrel with an agenda).

"The Buffalo Man"

[–] darkangel1980 19 years ago

"Perhaps life in Barcelona is a little bit different to life in America".

do you think what happens in the film is usual in spain or just in barcelona?

I don´t really care about the film, but that sentence is hilarious.

[–] sc_taylor 19 years ago

Almodovar is unquestionably the greatest cinematic talent alive today, and one of the very best the cinema has ever produced. His country can be rightly proud of him as the natural successor to Luis Bunuel.

His movies invariably leave me speechless with admiration.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] betsydamaris 19 years ago

IF you want ordinary characters, just live an ordinary life, but if you want the extraordinary, you go to the movies and watch films like this one.When you go to the movies it is to escape reality, so the characters are embellished with out of the ordinary traits. Is that wrong? No, it's entertainment, and Almodovar sure knows how to accomplish that.

[–] Dawny_Darko 19 years ago

Sorry to insult your obvious unintelligent trailer trash ignorance but you CAN NOT be 'infested' with AIDS as it is NOT A DISEASE but a CONDITION/STATE.

YOU CAN NOT CATCH, TRANSMIT, SHED OR GIVE ANYONE AIDS, AIDS is a term used to indicate a collection of diseases someone with advanced late stage HIV infection MIGHT be subseptible to. MOST PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV IN THE WEST DO NOT DEVELOP AIDS ANYMORE DUE TO SUCCESSFUL MEDICATION BEING AVAILABLE - THEREFORE IT IS WRONG TO SUGGEST THEY EVER WERE/ARE 'INFESTED' WITH IT.

PLEASE inform and educate yourself in future BEFORE writing such junk about things you have no knowledge about...Seems you are 'infested' with ignorance and the intelligence of an ass.

[–] petetete69 19 years ago

That would be "obviously", you moron.

[–] Rooster99 19 years ago

HAHAHAHAHA! Why is it that posters always pick on the most meaningless adjectives in a post with which to try to make a point? You don't bother to refute the position, you merely make a long tedious reply about a single word. Who cares if AIDS is a state or a disease, it changes NOTHING about the original post!

"half-man, half-woman cross-dressing heroin-addicted HIV-infested prostitute"

There, happy now? Oh my God, you made such a dramatic difference to the argument! Thank you, thank you Sam-I-am!

And while you are discussing ignorance, try looking up how adverbs are generally used. The next time I post and use an adjective to describe a character, I will be sure to look up the precise implications of carrying whatever the sickness may be so as to not offend such worldly creatures as you. I bask in your perfect glow. Although I have to say you did go a little heavy on the CAPS, try backing off a little, it makes using them more effective, otherwise people may just think your CAPS LOCK key is stuck and you don't know how to turn it off.

Oh, by the way, that would be trailer PARK trash, thank you very much. Bubbles and me is insulted. Also, try not to end sentences with prepositions, technically, that is a faux pas. Therefore, BEFORE you reply by discussing your condition/state or what have you, “please inform and educate yourself in future”, as I don't want to be insulted by an illiterate boob.

R.

[–] Caldheron99 19 years ago

Here here...

[–] brabrabra 18 years ago

its just the matter of taste... so armageddon and gozilla are better than all about my mother... hmmm .... if there are no armageddon and godzilla, we wouldnt know that all about my mother is a good movie, cos there are nothing to compare with... most hollywood movies are junk , but they have better special effects, i guess ... and they are always the gauge .. yah i think hollywood is god in film world .. sorry my english is bad...not my native language..hehe

[–] Rooster99 18 years ago

Your English is fine, and those are valid points. Yes, I know it's lame, I tend to like movies which feature special effects rather than human-interest tragedies (which makes me a hick in my foreign-movie-loving family). So I will stop commenting on this movie because it is worlds apart from the tripe I generally like to go and see (Godzilla, King Kong, Aeon Flux, etc.). I was hoping that seeing "All About My Mother" would allow me to appreciate a different type of film, instead I saw it as exactly how I described it; a vastly over-rated National Enquirer-fed tragedy. C'est la vie, I am doomed to see (and enjoy) the likes of MI3, X-Men 3, and Friday the 13th Part 417.

Cheers,
R.

[–] mja01-1 18 years ago

I love this movie.

Of course the plot is incredulous. The plot in an Almodovar movie is always incredulous. Isn't that kinda half the point?

The movie is simultaneously laughably melodramatic & deeply poignant. That's a neat trick. I don't know many filmmakers out there who can pull it off successfully. In fact, at the moment, the only one I can think of is Almodovar.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]