- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
Like sucking dick while guys watch, laugh, then take the majority if your earnings.
Like sucking dick while guys watch, laugh, then take the majority if your earnings.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 11,329
- Reaction score
- 3,130
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 11,329
- Reaction score
- 3,130
I'm looking for it without much luck.Not seen the flick? You should. You'll change somehow inside.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
G
Guestx
Guest
You're looking for Last Exit?
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 11,329
- Reaction score
- 3,130
G
Guestx
Guest
Check your e-mail.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2017
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 0
You god damm right.
G
Guestx
Guest
I'll send you a PM.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 35,147
- Reaction score
- 944
He'd fit right in actually
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 29
I’d like to join you all, but I can’t find a workable link that wants to cooperate with screen mirroring. I might be late on this one.
G
Guestx
Guest
Thought this movie was okay, but there was some weirdness to the story and I'm not just talking about the subject matter.
We have a different storylines here. Stephen Lang realizes he's a homo. Jennifer Jason Leigh is a whore at heart and doesn't seem to have any identity beyond this. And then we have the strike.
There are also some other smaller sub-plots, like the kid wanting to get his bike and the girl getting pregnant and that poor guy having to marry her, but these weren't central to the story.
Here's what I mean about story weirdness (I don't remember most of the character names so I'm going to do the best I can here):
- What was the point of the gay guy's character who died? Just to show that life at the time was hard for a gay person? I didn't really get his character, especially since he dies and is then just gone. Even his death doesn't mean anything because it was purely an accident.
- The plotline with Stephen Lang and his wife ultimately felt inconsequential. It's only referenced a couple of times. I also thought that he embraced his gayness a little too quickly. Seems like it would be more of an inner struggle.
- I really didn't understand the relationship between the gang of union guys and the pack of gay dudes. One day they're attacking each other with knives and then the next they're all hanging out in an apartment together? That just seemed weird and incongruous. It was like there was this pattern of everyone getting together and then the straight guys attack the gay dudes or whatever, and then the next day they're all hanging out again. Huh?
- I thought the speed with which the union guys turned against Stephen Lang also felt odd. One day he's regarded as a leader and beloved friend and then the next they're more than happy to just beat the shit out of him. Also, what happened to his character anyway? Are you to take it that he died? And why the hell was he just hanging on that fence or whatever it was? Couldn't he get down? He didn't seem to be crucified or anything.
- That officer guy who was really into Tral, what was up with his voice? Weird-voiced motherfucker!
Speaking of Tral, her character reminded me of this song, one of Pat Benatar's best:
That bitch only cared about one thing, using her pussy to rip dudes off and fuck them over somehow. She was hot, though. I'll give her that, though my favorite JJL performance is still her turn in the incredibly underrated Single White Female:
Anyway, yeah, I had a lot of questions with this one. Like I said, it was okay. The performances are good and it has a lot of names that went on to really establish themselves in the industry. But on a story level I wasn't super into it.
We have a different storylines here. Stephen Lang realizes he's a homo. Jennifer Jason Leigh is a whore at heart and doesn't seem to have any identity beyond this. And then we have the strike.
There are also some other smaller sub-plots, like the kid wanting to get his bike and the girl getting pregnant and that poor guy having to marry her, but these weren't central to the story.
Here's what I mean about story weirdness (I don't remember most of the character names so I'm going to do the best I can here):
- What was the point of the gay guy's character who died? Just to show that life at the time was hard for a gay person? I didn't really get his character, especially since he dies and is then just gone. Even his death doesn't mean anything because it was purely an accident.
- The plotline with Stephen Lang and his wife ultimately felt inconsequential. It's only referenced a couple of times. I also thought that he embraced his gayness a little too quickly. Seems like it would be more of an inner struggle.
- I really didn't understand the relationship between the gang of union guys and the pack of gay dudes. One day they're attacking each other with knives and then the next they're all hanging out in an apartment together? That just seemed weird and incongruous. It was like there was this pattern of everyone getting together and then the straight guys attack the gay dudes or whatever, and then the next day they're all hanging out again. Huh?
- I thought the speed with which the union guys turned against Stephen Lang also felt odd. One day he's regarded as a leader and beloved friend and then the next they're more than happy to just beat the shit out of him. Also, what happened to his character anyway? Are you to take it that he died? And why the hell was he just hanging on that fence or whatever it was? Couldn't he get down? He didn't seem to be crucified or anything.
- That officer guy who was really into Tral, what was up with his voice? Weird-voiced motherfucker!
Speaking of Tral, her character reminded me of this song, one of Pat Benatar's best:
That bitch only cared about one thing, using her pussy to rip dudes off and fuck them over somehow. She was hot, though. I'll give her that, though my favorite JJL performance is still her turn in the incredibly underrated Single White Female:
Anyway, yeah, I had a lot of questions with this one. Like I said, it was okay. The performances are good and it has a lot of names that went on to really establish themselves in the industry. But on a story level I wasn't super into it.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
I believe the book was a collection of stories written independently and published elsewhere prior. Also, I read that the Burt Young story-line was created specifically for the movie (in order to lighten things up a tad). As I said to Muster, I think the whole thing is more of a snapshot in a certain time and place than it is trying to tell you some character's story or to enlighten the viewer with some lesson on human existence.
G
Guestx
Guest
What can I say about this film? It felt more like a character study to me, similar to the way Diner was. I found it strangely funny when Georgie was shrieking and jumping as knives are thrown at his feet.
Then I find out that character is played by Alexis Arquette.
I'm like, wtf is going on here. Then I find out that Alexis Arquette is in Pulp Fiction.
Ok, mind blown. What is up with this odd looking chick playing male homosexuals and male characters in general? Come to find out, Alexis was born as Robert and underwent gender transition in his late 30's.
Then I find out that he/she is related to Meriwether Lewis of Lewis and Clark.
Who was a former boyfriend of Alexis Arquette? Robert Dupont.
Robert Dupont, who was actually Robert Lasko. Robert Lasko and his brother Richard Lasko called themselves the Dupont twins.
In the late 70's the Dupont Twins became part of Andy Warhols entourage.
In 1977 the Dupont Twins worked for a caterer named Martha Stewart.
Robert Dupont went on to become Alexis Arquettes boyfriend. Alexis died in 2013 of complications from HIV at the age of 47. Before her death, Robert Dupont reported that Alexis was living as a man again.
WTF?!
That's all I can muster, Muster.
What in the actual fuck?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 31,513
- Reaction score
- 9,063
Word to the wise: I'm feverish while writting this so if it sounds even stranger or even more rambel-y than usual then that's why!
Ah man. My original intentions make me feel kinda guilty now. I was planning for half-this-post to just be me bitching about Cugo not picking Caligula in his decadence theme but then I actually watched this film. This flick is fucking rad man. It's good in all the right places that it needs to be.
Hey remember that rather supbar New York movie we watched way back, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints? This is what that movie SHOULD have been! This movie fucking oozes grime. I bet if I had a DVD of this and I touched it my hand would be covered in filth, crud and fucking mud!
Brooklyn in this movie is gritty, grimy and thoroughly-lived in. The streets are filthy, run-down and its buildings partly dilapidated. It's thoroughly proletariat. It's a perfect mood-setter and it reflects the characters that inhabit it well. The director enchances this by conjuring a lot of smog and shadows to the set, making the setting really come alive.
The character in this are just real slobs. There a really special kind of satisfactionary feeling that you get when you see character that are supposed to be unpleasant ACTUALLY be unpleasant on screen. There are so many gangster or crime films where the characters have a faux-edge to them. They're supposed to be gritty but they're really not. There's none of fucking that in this film, aight! Here the director takes the characters to their logical extremes. You see all that nastiness that something like A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints was to yellow to show us.
But, just as crucially, this is also a humanistic film. All the characters are actual character. They may be beastial or fucked-up as all hell but they're still a human mind ticking behind their behaviors or action. They're is both a societal and personal reason for them acting as they do. And that elevates if from being just a bunch of fucked up shit going on.
One of the actors who I really thought nailed this unpleasantness was Stephen Baldwin who played Sal (the most light-haired one of the trio of hoodlums). His body-language during this film is downright animalistic. The way he gapes his mouths and chortles uncontrollably and slits his eyes as he's laughing. His handsyness. It's really an actor understanding that his character is completely uncultured -- and following through with the conclusions of how that affects one's behavior. It's really gorilla-like the way his facial expressions are. Really fucking well done.
I think this is one of those films that's best served by talking about the individual characters personally, assessing what makes them tick. But being feverish right now thinking about anything for about 15-minutes straight leaves me with a headace so I leave that for tommorrow or I just pray and hope that someone else has done that before me so that I don't have to do that myself.
Ah man. My original intentions make me feel kinda guilty now. I was planning for half-this-post to just be me bitching about Cugo not picking Caligula in his decadence theme but then I actually watched this film. This flick is fucking rad man. It's good in all the right places that it needs to be.
Hey remember that rather supbar New York movie we watched way back, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints? This is what that movie SHOULD have been! This movie fucking oozes grime. I bet if I had a DVD of this and I touched it my hand would be covered in filth, crud and fucking mud!
Brooklyn in this movie is gritty, grimy and thoroughly-lived in. The streets are filthy, run-down and its buildings partly dilapidated. It's thoroughly proletariat. It's a perfect mood-setter and it reflects the characters that inhabit it well. The director enchances this by conjuring a lot of smog and shadows to the set, making the setting really come alive.
The character in this are just real slobs. There a really special kind of satisfactionary feeling that you get when you see character that are supposed to be unpleasant ACTUALLY be unpleasant on screen. There are so many gangster or crime films where the characters have a faux-edge to them. They're supposed to be gritty but they're really not. There's none of fucking that in this film, aight! Here the director takes the characters to their logical extremes. You see all that nastiness that something like A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints was to yellow to show us.
But, just as crucially, this is also a humanistic film. All the characters are actual character. They may be beastial or fucked-up as all hell but they're still a human mind ticking behind their behaviors or action. They're is both a societal and personal reason for them acting as they do. And that elevates if from being just a bunch of fucked up shit going on.
One of the actors who I really thought nailed this unpleasantness was Stephen Baldwin who played Sal (the most light-haired one of the trio of hoodlums). His body-language during this film is downright animalistic. The way he gapes his mouths and chortles uncontrollably and slits his eyes as he's laughing. His handsyness. It's really an actor understanding that his character is completely uncultured -- and following through with the conclusions of how that affects one's behavior. It's really gorilla-like the way his facial expressions are. Really fucking well done.
I think this is one of those films that's best served by talking about the individual characters personally, assessing what makes them tick. But being feverish right now thinking about anything for about 15-minutes straight leaves me with a headace so I leave that for tommorrow or I just pray and hope that someone else has done that before me so that I don't have to do that myself.
Last edited:
