Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
I could see the Clippers entering the tankathon with their already bad record and Bev being done for the season. I wonder if they try to trade anything for a rebuild.

They will trade Jordan, I think.
TV/Film & Literature / Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Last post by 209 on Today at 11:06:20 AM »

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), directed by Amy Heckerling

It was suggested to me very recently that I watch this film, but it turns out that I was going to do it this week regardless. I didn't know what to make of this when I listed it. I know the scene everyone in this film talks about. I've seen it, and it isn't a really big deal to me. So what's the deal with the rest of this? I didn't know, but I wanted to find out. When the opening credits started playing, I saw that Cameron Crowe wrote the screenplay for this film. The only film of his that I've seen is Almost Famous. That's a great one, and eventually I need to revisit it. That alone would earn somebody another chance with me. Sure, it took me around 15 years to give that chance, but oh well. I know a lot of people shit on him for his last film, which I need to watch in order to see the reason why. Anyway, back to this.

This has a big ensemble cast, I guess you could say one of them is the main character. Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is a young girl, coming of age. Everyone knows how that goes. Or they don't. Regardless, this film follows a group of people at a high school. I will describe them as such. Brad (Judge Reinhold) is working a McDonalds type job in order to pay off his old car. He's Stacy's brother. Brad also has a girlfriend. Stacy has a friend named Linda (Phoebe Cates), she's more experienced than Stacy, and she seems to know everything. That's her deal. Mike Damone (Robert Romanus) is a guy who thinks he's cool. He buys tickets and scalps them at a slightly higher price, making a couple spare bucks. His friend Mark (Brian Backer) is a nerd. It's not surprising that Mark would have very little career after this film. He was in his mid-20's when filming this and looked 14. Just like any other nerd, Mark wants to get laid, he just doesn't know how. There's also Spicoli (Sean Penn). Spicoli is stoned all the time and clashes with a teacher, Mr. Hand (Ray Walston). There are other characters, but I've pretty much set the table.

Why is this movie a big deal? I will give my 35 years later perspective. Obviously, there's Phoebe Cates taking her top off. I'm not going to be some kind of an idiot and claim that's not a major part of it. I have read Roger Ebert's review of this movie prior to writing mine and I could not disagree with him more. I very rarely do that, but I had a feeling that he hated this film. He thinks that this film was merely a raunchfest. It wasn't. It's not entirely unrealistic. The movie is vulgar, but that's what high school is. The film also shows the characters doing stupid things and learning from them. There are also loads of great scenes. This film is supposed to make people uncomfortable. Kids do things that they shouldn't do. They jerk off in the bathroom while people are at their house, and they get walked in on. That's the way it goes. It's not like that's the only accurate scene either, the film is loaded with them. It's just hard for me to mention them because people here have told me they didn't watch this.

It has been said by other people that this genre was pretty much dead until this film was made. It isn't like a big studio such as Universal to take chances on movies. As mentioned, people considered this film smut. How does that happen? I don't really know. It's definitely not smut in comparison to a lot of other films made previously. It's probably because they were kids. Well, the actors weren't kids, so at least there's that, and there's no reason to feel dirty for watching this. It's easy for a filmmaker to make a movie like this, but it isn't easy to keep the viewer off balance throughout. A good example in my case is when Spicoli is on screen. I couldn't stop laughing whenever he'd say something. This is one of the best portrayals that I have ever seen. Nobody else in this film is even remotely as interesting as him.

If there are any criticisms, they are mainly in relation to one character. Rat is an extremely bad caricature and I didn't enjoy watching him in this movie. Is he accurate to the way high schoolers act? Yes. I was like that until I asked out my first girlfriend. But he stayed like that for the duration of the film. He didn't learn anything or progress forward very much. The post-script makes it sound like he did to some extent, but you know, not really. I also would have liked it if Forest Whitaker had been given more lines and more opportunity to be a dick. Instead, his character exists somewhere in the background. It's too bad. This film is also somewhat dated and not realistic in the sense of drugs having become a major part of every high schoolers growing up period. Perhaps that wasn't the case in 1982, but my parents have told me otherwise and that's when my mom graduated from high school. The film is set around here and my mom went to school around here. She would know.

There are a few things that separate this from Dazed and Confused, which is a much superior movie. Not to make this sound bad, because it wasn't. It's a classic in the mind of some people and that's fine. The characters in Fast Times are so completely different though. They are focused. Most teenagers are not, they're the exact opposite. The characters in Dazed and Confused are also simply more funny. Why? I don't know, I'm not capable of answering that. Perhaps it's because I identify with them more. There are lots of kids out there that are like those in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, but I wasn't one of them. It's perspectives that lead to differing opinions on movies like these ones. I also need to watch American Graffiti, and there are others that come to mind, but I probably won't ever get tired of this genre. I mean, why would anyone?

I get that they aren't perfect.  But, in the grand scheme of things I tend to believe if someone passes a polygraph they are more likely to be telling the truth than not. 

The thing is, all this is he said-she said unless there is proof one way or the other.  I'm just not real comfortable with the new climate (which in all fairness seems to be the opposite of the old climate) of women don't ever lie about this, so if they make an accusation it's true.

And my guess is if this were the opposite.  If she took a polygraph and passed it, the reaction would be different. 

the stat for false reports is like 3% so if the woman passed it would be reinforcing something that was already incredibly likely. Polygraph tests are total bullshit though so I wouldn't use it to believe anyone.

that 3% stat is suspect:

First, there are some reasons to be skeptical of the statistic. The various studies that produced it are, to varying degrees, flawed. Some of them aren't even studies: When the 2 percent false-rape-report statistic first appeared in feminist author Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, the sole source was something a judge had said at a public meeting. And there are outliers—a study by Eugene Kanin found a 40 percent false-report rate. Like other studies on this subject, it has its flaws: Researchers relied on the police to make determinations about whether an allegation was demonstrably false or merely unproven.

Indeed, this is a serious problem with all of the studies—a reported rape is only considered false if the police can actually prove it false, usually because the victim recanted her statement or a witness other than the perpetrator contradicted the account. There could be more false rape reports than we think, because the police are not able to definitively prove the victim lied; or there could be even fewer, because the police erroneously classified some unproven rapes as false. As Bloomberg View's Megan McArdle wrote about the false report rate, "Here's the real answer: We don't know. Anyone who insists that we do know should be corrected or ignored."
I could see the Clippers entering the tankathon with their already bad record and Bev being done for the season. I wonder if they try to trade anything for a rebuild.
Current Events / Re: Net Neutrality Nixed
« Last post by Damaramu on Today at 10:43:18 AM »
I can't read Portugese. How much are they charging you for what?

You have to pay for everything separately? WTF?

I thought it was odd that I got a letter from Cox informing me I now had a data cap shortly after this asshole took office.
Current Events / Re: Net Neutrality Nixed
« Last post by Slayer on Today at 10:39:30 AM »
something something competition and infallible free market will save us something
I was bugged that Miz lost to Corbin clean and then dropped the IC title on Raw but he's apparently off for a bit to shoot another Marine movie with Shawn Michaels and Becky Lynch (which explains her beatdown on SD) so at least it makes sense.
LaVar Ball vs Trump...2017 in a nutshell.
He's in a profession where he lies and pretends to be someone else, and has been for the past 20+ years.
Current Events / Re: Net Neutrality Nixed
« Last post by snuffbox on Today at 09:27:13 AM »
The best deal. The biggest. The best.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10