Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




  • I see direct parallels to Lolita man.
  • I’ve seen it twice now and have no idea what those hypothetical parallels would be. The age gap between the two men in Call Me By Your Name is 7 years (and as I stated Chalamet’s character is above the age of consent) — Lolita is about a middle aged man fucking a 12 year old girl. Not remotely the same thing. If you want to convince me this movie somehow condones pedophilia (an accusation I maintain is absurd) then you’re gonna have to give me some solid, unambiguous evidence directly from the film.
  • I gave a pretty good explanation for why I thought the age read much larger than that
  • the explanation being that he seems younger than 17? he's 17. there is a world of difference between 17 and 12. and there's another world of difference between a 7-yr and a decades-long gap.
  • (the actor is 22, by the way)
  • edited January 7
    I frankly don't care if the actor was 30, anyway this is not my only problem with the film, here's a link to my full review - [URL=""]
  • The character seeming childish to you in no way makes the relationship predatory, nor does it represent the mentality of legitimate sexual predators like Kevin Spacey or Bryan Singer. That idea is, frankly, utter horseshit. Furthermore i find it intensely disturbing that this idiotic narrative only ever seems to come up with gay films. Says a lot don’t it.

    Also, “twink” is a pretty derogatory term for gay people. Not that you care, I suppose.
  • Lmfao, it doesn't only come up with gay films, you put a younger looking girl in the same situation and there would be even more scrutiny because the relationship would seem more predatory... The father's response would also be under more scrutiny. The films characterization is derogatory man, it's quintessential twink
  • How in the holy hell is this film derogatory to gay people? Alright bro now you’re not making a lick of sense on this one
  • The kid does some pretty cringe shit
  • Saw scanners it was even better than it was bad
  • I remember the only thing about Scanners which wasn't great was the lead performance.
  • I really dig Scanners.

    (Also, I can't wait see Call Me By Your Name in a couple of weeks. I had a convo with someone else who hated it, and could speak at all in its defense or in agreement. All I know is that I AM very excited to see it and am optimistic.)
  • watched Celebration (Festen) cuz i wanted to see dogma #1 and it was dense. it moved episodically without breaking flow and always seemed to return to the party no matter how fucked up the party got. it kinda felt like resident evil 1 where you're still in a really nice mansion the whole time no matter how many abominations await in the unexplored chambers. i don't know what i'd give it. it feels weird rating a movie like this. watch it if u can deal with the really morbid subject matter.
  • Blue velvet is cool
  • it is!

    you know what isn't though?

    the last jedi. decent 4.
  • edited January 10
    nah. 2nd best Star Wars, easily (and I’m not even a huge fan of the series)
  • strong 8 for me

    and blue velvet’s amazing, one of my favorite films
  • The Last Jedi certainly has its lows, but makes up for it with spectacular highs. It has some of the greatest moments and scenes of the entire series
  • I just thought the Finn/Rose story was ultimately pointless,

    the film did not have to be 2 hours and 50 minutes at all.
  • edited January 10
    How does setting up a phenomenally emotional climax that beautifully encapsulates the themes of this film constitute a pointless storyline? I’m utterly baffled every time I hear people complain about that storyline, especially because it includes one of the coolest settings of any Star Wars film, the casino. Everything in there was utterly delightful, but because it’s Rian Johnson he subverts it into a surprisingly cogent comment on the war industry. I haven’t seen anything that direct in a huge franchise movie in... I don’t know how long. I thought it was brilliant, and that stuff like this seems to have superfans gnashing their teeth makes it that much more satisfying to me
  • I'm not even a superfan!

    I mean I can't even say that you're wrong. I don't know, it didn't feel necessary to me.
  • I know you’re not a superfan but nonetheless the fanboys also hate that storyline for reasons I guess
  • I even agree with your review of the film on Letterboxd, but ultimately I was not ...

    into it
  • fair ‘nuff bruddah
  • I watched dial m for murder, strangers on a train, family plot and shadow of a doubt

    Dial m for murder was super abstract negative concrete very dope
  • just saw the trailer for Sicario 2 and this looks like a direct-to-DVD sequel compared to the first one
  • well yeah, villeneuve isn't involved
  • Or the Deak. Or Blunt.
  • the lack of Deakins was immediately apparent. It just looks like any old generic cartel thriller. And Blunt’s character was crucial to the first film, there needed to be a moral center to all the rampant neanderthalism. The original film’s comment on institutional corruption doesn’t register at all without that

    Also I pretty much hated Wind River so I have no hope for this
Sign In or Register to comment.