MovieChat Forums > [email protected] > Replies
[email protected]'s Replies
Personally I find Donna much prettier than Jackie. She looks like she has a capacity for kindness and playfulness that Jackie lacks, and I'm trying to focus on looks, not character. Sure Kunis has eyes to kill for, but Prepon looks more like a smart and mature woman than Kunis, while also having very pleasant facial features. Just on a very visceral level, I think Prepon is much more attractive than Kunis. She always grabs my attention when she's on screen while Kunis I can take or leave. Of course, Jackie has much funnier lines, so I love her on the show, but Donna makes my heart go a-flutter.
I hate to agree with ppllkk too much, but I do find your take on Mad to be odd. I think she tries to ingratiate and feel comfortable with her in-laws but they just don't feel comfortable with her. You seem very harsh toward Mad when that bird gets broken. She wants to own up to it but Ashley asserts herself, and Mad isn't sure how to proceed. At worst, if she's not perceptive it's because she doesn't expect her in-laws to be so standoff-ish. And I wouldn't at all say she seriously lacks adaptive social skills. She's up against some hard cases, it's not her fault they are so rigid.
While sex was an obvious element of the film, I don't read anything negative about their behavior or their connection with one another. Perhaps they don't "know each other" very well, but I don't see it as a significant plot point. Something to think about, though, maybe.
Personally, I found Johnny's character to be the least believable in this otherwise very natural-feeling film. He acts in ways I might excuse or expect in a young teenager, but not an adult. Of course, this isn't the path the filmmakers wanted so he was simply (to me) an oddity of self-centered churlishness. Simply put, he seemed like a real dope, and not as a product of his mother's favoring George. I'm glad they included the scene of him at work, but I still couldn't believe he could be that clueless dealing with his family.
While I agree almost 100% with your analysis of this film, you could be a little more tactful with your disagreements.
People seem to forget this is a movie, albeit naturalistic, and there is tension meant to be created that we might find puzzling. I think Mad does her best to be friendly to her new in-laws, but she has a cultured veneer that some might find off-putting, and there isn't much she can do about it. The minute Mad stepped into the kitchen for a late night tutoring session I knew it wouldn't end well, and she should have been aware of how she might come across, but she seems to think everyone shares her relaxed "European" sensibility.
I also don't find Peg to be as awful as a lot of people are making her out to be. It's unfortunate the affect she may have on her loved ones, but she's just a rural matriarch who's rigid in her mindset. Eugene is no pistol; life may have disappointed her, too.
But I really like this movie. Another favorite with difficult family issues is The Sweet Hereafter. Solemn but moving.
That you are so enraged over some silly person using the phrase "religious nutcase" in regard to Christianity seems to validate the OP's remark. Sadly, there are a lot of nutcases around, especially of the religious variety. You can either be one or keep your own counsel. I found the scene to be charming and find nothing wrong the the portrayal of Christians as regular people in this film, so no need to go berserk just because someone wasn't sufficiently respectful.
I love this film and I appreciate your frustration when some don't fathom the nuances the relationships have.
But I don't think it's terribly off-track to point out how Mad's high-brow culture collides somewhat with the Carolinians rural sensibility. She is just a little tone-deaf - only a little - to how best to connect with these new family members.
That someone sees this as a plot point doesn't seem far-fetched to me, and I hope you can recognize perhaps your own tone-deafness when dealing with someone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
I say this respectfully as I agree with your estimation of this film whole-heartedly.
I think you take this movie far more seriously than it was meant to be taken. It's a breezy dramedy showcasing the charming Keri Russell. At the end, you're supposed to feel good.
If you want reality, volunteer at your local woman's shelter. Seriously, they may need the help, just try to hold on to an optimistic attitude, if you can.
I'm a guy and I really like this movie. When it was new, it likely got a good write-up for the local art house and I went alone, as I recall.
There are a lot of problems with this film if I took it seriously, but because it is directed and filmed with such breezy pace and brightness, I find it very watchable. Hard not to fall in love with Keri Russell.
A lot of the elements - Sisto's gum-chomping macho dude, the sudden hot smooching of Jenna and the doc, the sassy semi-attractive waitress - really were beyond credibility for a serious effort, but like another poster said elsewhere, it's a fairy-tale and I find it a very pleasant movie to just enjoy the easy flow of. Mostly there is an undercurrent of subtle humor that keeps this movie from going under. I don't like that the doctor's personal office is a paper-work strewn disaster, that really undermines his credibility as a physician (to me, anyway) but that's not the point of the film. And especially when he seems to not even hesitate jumping on his pregnant patient while being a trusted and likable figure for the viewer, and married on top of it, it rings all the wrong bells. But the movie perkily moves right on so it doesn't ruin it for me.
And the characters are just close enough to being comic exaggerations, so the movie seems more a charming, sentimental lark than something to be dissected for it's flaws.
Another fun film not to be taken seriously is Baghdad Cafe, in case anyone reading this is not familiar.
I have to disagree. DD is more than lovely enough to fit this role. In fact, it strikes me how many movies try to shoe-horn models into roles simply to exploit their attractiveness, and it looks completely contrived. DD has beautiful eyes, and even if her total facial structure does not make her an unusually stunning beauty (there aren't that many), she's certainly believable as a beautiful woman in any scenario. The more believable (i.e., real-life-like) a film is supposed to be, the less likely it should feel the need to fall back on cheap theatrics like employing some model to portray a realistically lovely woman. Plus I don't know why the role even calls for it.
On top of that, films have budgets, so I'm not sure who could fill this somewhat sad role convincingly and within budget.
Respectfully, I can't disagree more strongly.
Hey ! You should have been in the movie. Just the sort of dumb argument they are making fun of. Brilliant !
Your reply is much more appreciated w/o the f-m thrown in. Completely inappropriate and part of the reason IMDb cut out the discussion boards. Please try to be civil, (we all know it's in you).
Considering the cast and story, I had hoped it would have a more serious feel. it reminds me (only a little) of McLintock! in that everything is in place to make a great film, but they wanted to make it light-hearted, and at the end, I just feel like they didn't succeed with the material they had. It's enjoyable, but hard to take seriously.
There is an odd cult film called Baghdad Cafe which Palance has a large role in. It's really worth seeing, funny and heart-warming and off-beat.
Darn. You already mentioned D&C. Sorry 'bout that.
Dazed and Confused ! It reminds me so much of the styles I grew up with, hair and clothes.
We didn't have hazing, fortunately, but otherwise this is exactly the way it was around 1976-77.
And it's a light comedy, but realistic so it's not a farce. It's just a slice of life of a bunch of kids who haven't had to deal with hard decisions, (other than sticking up for yourself against a tougher guy). One of my favorites, and not a downer.