Conference bookie::movies

    
    Another case of Hollywood remaking a foreign language film ?
    
    Mark

    
    	What does Julie Newmar have to do with this movie?
    

    re .2
    
    
    "To Wong Foo..." was in development before or at the same time as
    "Priscilla...", which was released first.  I remembering hearing about
    "To Wong Foo..." quite some time ago.  I think (and this really is pure
    hypothesis) that the studio may have waffled on releasing a film with
    limited marquee value and such an ungainly name, then was bolstered by
    the success of "Priscilla...".   
    
    
    Re .3   The title comes from an actual picture the writer (if memory
    serves) saw in a Chinese restraunt.  The wall next to his table had
    many signed photos of celebrities, including one from Julie Newmar. 
    Apparantly, the autograph stuck in his head.  (I think, in the movie,
    the characters also have a picture of Julie Newmar with said autograph
    on it, but I'm not sure, I haven't seen it yet).  
    
    
    Helpfully yours,
    
    
    kim

    Re: .3
    
    In the movie, Vida sees the picture on the wall of the restaurant and
    steals it.
    
    John

    re.1
    
    Admittedly, Australians are sometimes hard to understand, but I would
    hardly call "Priscilla..." a FOREIGN language film ;^)
    
    
    Marilyn

    I loved this film.  I don't think it was anti-male at all.  If
    it was it was , it was against men who think that attacking/beating 
    up a woman is called for - which it never is. I think Patrick Swayze
    did a wonderful job.  I was watching Gene Siskel (of Siskel &
    Ebert fame) and he said that he thought Patrick Swayze did such
    a good job that he wouldn't be surprised if he got an Oscar
    nomination. 
    
    I would recommend it to anyone - I probably will end up seeing it
    again.
    
    Mo
    

    
    
    Just saw it over the weekend, and I felt the same as some of you too.
    Priscilla was more outrageous in costumes and location. Patrick
    S. was excellent as a "gay man" who happens to be a Drag Queen,
    Snipes was a little too shy, John L. was great too!
    Julie Newmar was their inspiration throughout, she still has a
    dynamite body for almost 60 years old.
    
    
    
    I would see it again on video! 
    
    BR

>    I don't think it was anti-male at all.  If
>    it was it was , it was against men who think that attacking/beating 
>    up a woman is called for - which it never is.

    Not to argue, but to further explain my take on it, consider all their
    options when they selected male characters, then look at what they
    picked:

    <spoiler>













    

    1. A wife-beater. 

    2. A sexually harassing cop who is the very image of Prince Anticharming,
    scouring the countryside with a "glass" slipper.

    3. An obnoxious, disrepectful gang of boys who through no effort of their
    own, barely escape committing rape. 

    4. A pretty boy who is so naive/stupid he falls in love with the sexy
    make-up and feminine affectations of a drag queen. Then, tossed back into
    the pond, he is quickly rehooked by a local girl using the same bait.

    5. A shy clerk, socially handicapped by a stutter and liberated by a
    polyester outfit.

    6. Three gay men who are trying to pass themselves off as women.

    The only real "catch" for a women in this nearly all-white town is the
    apparently nice black restaurant owner. Ok, so it's not all men we're
    rallying against, just the brutish white heterosexual male patriarchy.

    Consider the dialogue in which they come up with a very short list of men
    who will be allowed to remain in the world after they express their desire
    that most of that gender should be gotten rid of.

    The more I think about this movie, the more I see it as a 90's fairy tale
    (can't avoid the pun), a retelling of Cinderella with considerable
    resentment for men who spoil the original by not turning out to be princes.
    Vida, the fairy godmother, dresses up her Cinderellas, not in outfits for
    the ball, but in warpaint for the battle of the sexes. Ultimately though,
    it's males using violence against other males which liberates these women.
    Fortunately for them, since their knights are wearing gowns not shining
    armor, they don't have to pay for their freedom with sexual favors. The
    evil males are repelled or cast out. The remaining males are subdued. The
    town is safe for sisterhood. The fake females who have shown the way and
    muscled them all to victory ride off to other battles.

    Then again, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

    ;)

    John

    PS: I don't object to revising Cinderella per se. It's a pretty stupid
    fairy tale. It's just that when I go to the movies, I prefer real stories,
    or at least sophisticated social satire, to inept allegories like this.
    

    To each his/her own but from what I can see, we all need a little
    fairy tale once in a while - God knows real life is hard enough 
    and I don't need to pay $7.00 at a movie theater to be reminded
    of that.
    
    Mo
    

    >     The actors do their best, but Swayze and Snipes have little to work
    > with except the emasculation of their own movie star images.
    
    Baltimore Sun gave this 2.5 / 4 stars, saying, "The producers
    apparently hope that you will start out laughing *at* Snipes and
    Swayze, and end up laughing *with* them. That doesn't happen, but
    heck -- a laugh is a laugh."

    
    Is the expression _fairy_ tale politically correct in this context? 
    
    Mark
    
    PS Do I REALLY need a smiley on every note?
    

    re: .8
    
    All I can say is what women have been hearing for 2,000 years every
    time we complain about woman-bashing:  
    
    1.	You're over-reacting.
    2.	What's the matter?  Can't you take a joke?
    3.	Paranoid, huh?
    
    Given these remarks, it's hard to take your complaint seriously.

    Re:.12

    If I make an effort to get you to take my "complaint" seriously, is
    there a possibility you'll refund my money?!?

    :)

    John
    

    The same possibility that hell will freeze over.  I'll let you know
    when that happens.

    We saw this on Sunday and found it to be one of the
    more enjoyable films we've seen recently.
    
    I can't agree at all with previous comments that this is
    an anti-men film.
    
    The sheriff was too much of a buffoon to be believable, and
    that, for me was one of the weak points of the movie.
    
    I also found that the final scene of the movie just didn't fit;
    it was too much of a happy ending and detracted from the movie.
    
    Yup, the film was far from perfect, but was a good laugh for a
    rainy Sunday afternoon.

    I found this one pretty entertaining too, taken as a fairly "light"
    movie with requisite "heavy" points (wife beating, prejudice) thrown
    in.  This is not uncommon to fluffy movies.  Even that most inane of
    comedies, "Porky's", had a moral or two tossed in, fer gosh sake. :)
    
    
    
    **.75 out of ****
    
    kim