You can really tell the difference between modern movies and movies in the sixties and seventies by their teeth. Everyone in modern movies has shockingly white teeth.
@@demeraradove I dont think there was any good outcome with him staying there To have any kind of normal future he had to get away from there, possibly with Kirsten's character. Because him staying there would bring nothing good, the jealousy and rivalry would have remained
simetra There's another version of the trailer that's a whole lot more revealing than the one they showed! I watched the other version and I was so upset :(
The commentators talked as if they were promoting the new version, but they seemed to overlook that the parts in the original that were (justifiably in their opinion) left out were in fact crucial in understanding the characters. (1) The black slave girl was crucial in understanding the soldier character. In fact, she was the first he approached to get help to escape, telling her that they were "on the same side" (he being a Yankee). It was only after that failed that he tried to manipulate the other women. (2) The youngest girl Amy: Are we to suppose that she agreed to poison the man because he killed her turtle? Actually, in the original, he tried to play lover to her too and kissed her on the mouth in their very first scene. Later, she told the man that she didn't believe the teacher's accusation but then broke down and asked: "But why were you in her room? I thought I was the one you loved." Disturbing, for sure (she was like 12), but again important in showing what kind of man he was. (3) In the original, in addition to the French teacher, he tried to seduce the headmistress too. The latter had an unhealthy relationship with her own brother, now missing because of war. The soldier did much "research" into this history and tried to substitute in his place. Some of those elements above were disturbing, but all were important in understanding the characters and their motivations. The Sofia Coppola film was lacking in this regard.
I'm starting to think Ben just shows up, grabs a cup of coffee and tells the cameras to roll. He never seems prepared for a review. "Was it set in Virginia?" "Were there six girls?" Geez, Ben, did you even see the movie? And, you can take notes on your smartphone, now; you don't even need pen and paper. Keep up, please. As for the movie itself, I'm not a Nicole Kidman fan, but Christy persuaded me it's worth seeing with her sheer enthusiasm. I won't trek out to the theatre to see it, but I'll probably check it out when it comes on Amazon Prime or something.
Ben comes off bored, unprepared and uninterested - like he was up all night and in need of sleep. The fact that he doesn't even remember the slave character in the Siegel/Eastwood film speaks volumes. I've seen him this way in other reviews. I like him fine on TCM, although he pales next to Robert Osborne. Those established Hollywood names can take you far, though - as in Mankiewicz and Coppola.
These characters are not just women, they are Confederate woman. They proudly assert their southernness, emphasise “southern hospitality,” and their Confederate allegiance as Christians. Miss Martha interacts with Confederate soldiers with kindness, clearly taking a side. These gender dynamics are absolutely racial, whether we choose to acknowledge that at all. The “Southern belle,” especially, is a figure that romanticises the economic prosperity that rises from slave labor-she cannot exist without the slave. Their so-called “proper” femininity cannot be separated from that of the black woman, as invisible as she is in the film.
I saw the movie tonight. Yes, it is beautiful to look at but it didn't do it for me. I loved the original, mostly bc the tone, the sinister quality had me riveted. Like Ben said, I was confused by this version's character motivations esp Colin Farrell. I felt like the tension and the foreboding quality was missing. Many of the people in the theater were laughing their asses off. I guess it was funny!???
I might be wrong about you but I suspect that If you went down South and mingled amongst white southerners you would be surprised at how welcoming most of them are and how much about the way they live and interact with each other has little to nothing to do with race. Don't get me wrong, I'm not black and I know they have their issues with race but then so do most regions of the country. But just like you go through your day NOT reflecting on your personal issues with race so do they. In fact it is quite possible and probably quite common to go through life never reflecting on that issue and not being perturbed one way or the other. You referenced "gender dynamics". Can you reference gender dynamics in Canada without mentioning the quasi genocide that populations of indigenous women are going through? How about poverty? Or wage disparity? In other words, just because this movie is a period piece from a time when there was slavery doesn't mean slavery and its ills have to be referenced or included in every story from that time.
Don't Touch My Hair : I agree. Black women existed, and speaking of an ambivalent time...it seems so much richer. These women would have to confront their own assumptions and behaviors. I generally agree with atheism wtf view once they love a piece. Interesting how Americans have this paternal affection for their second generation first younger woman director...sam Seder has- not a joke (Trump talking Citizen Kane)...Orson Wells evidently could not crack Joseph Conrad. Hence FFC did {as if any one needs to know how I moved from A to B.
Why do people generalize and dehumanize the plight of people of color, by calling it politics? We are more than politics we are people with intelligence,vulnerabilities, and such strengths. Don't erase us for your conveniences, then tell us your doing us a favor.
Who would have ever thought Kirsten dunst could have a double chin!??😆😆😆 I love that she didn't lose weight for the role...I noticed this in the movie myself. She actually looks like a real woman, instead of a Hollywood waif. So refreshing.
I've seen both of the movies. The lack of emotion in the women is what put me off to the second movie, their constant stoic expressions. I understand what she Sofia Coppola was presenting to the audience with the scenes all being so dark in the beginning... their boredom, loneliness, the Civil war and the horror of it all as well as losing loved ones, Victorian times where candles and oil burning lanterns the only source of light, I get all of that, but none of it pulled me into the characters and story, In fact it left me irritated. Yes as John got well the scenes were filled with more light suggesting the moods of the women. I have to say I prefer the first movie much more so than the second. That is just my personal opinion.
I like that Ben points out the run times of movies. So many movies nowadays are far too long. Oftentimes a movie benefits from a shorter run time. Not always but a lot of the time.
Hey guys, fyi: I saw the movie today and the credit says the script is based on both the novel AND the screenplay of the Don Siegel version. So it's self admittedly a remake.
I find it so funny when white directors try to justify the lack of diversity and/or the whitewashing in their works by expressing discomfort in portraying characters of color. Like, are POC really that alien to white people? They can direct monsters, historical figures, superheroes, etc, but not a POC. Also, Sofia Coppola's excuse about how she didn't want black girls to see such representation in her film is straight up bullshit. She's adamant about how her movie is an adaptation of the book, not the 70s movie, but instead of including Edwina, a white-passing mixed race teacher whose character was not included in the original movie, she whitewashed it by essentially transforming it into Dunst's character. She could have included this character, have some non-white representation not centered on slavery, and interestingly explore the intersections of her identity (being a teacher in an all-white school, her race, gender, passing privilege, etc), but she chose not to. I'm not one bit surprised by it, though. After all, Coppola's brand of feminism is straight up white feminism as made very clear by some of her comments. When she says that she's exploring the gender dynamics of the time, not the racial ones, she suggests that white women have no race, a particularly ironic idea in the context of the post civil-war South and that black women have no gender, a fucked up concept we keep see again and again in comments made by Hollywood feminists. It's almost as if they don't see black/Non-white women as women, so you have people like Elizabeth Banks forgetting about The Color Purple when trying to argue that Spielberg has never had a female lead and Patricia Arquette saying that since women have helped out other marginalized groups, now these groups have to fight for women as if these groups don't include women. The irony of it all is that this type of thinking is racial in nature because it comes from America's view of whiteness as the norm, so understandably white womanhood is also seen as the norm. I would really appreciate it if people would stop perpetuating this idea by describing both this movie and Coppola as champions of female representation in film since the more accurate description is that they both champion WHITE women in film.
In the original Siegel film the slave character didn't distract at all from the film (what you call "race nonsense") - it strengthened it, gave it more spine. There was a real complex dynamic between the slave, the union soldier and the female teachers and students that operated on both an erotic and historical level. Have you seen the Eastwood version? If not, it's really worth checking out.
The movie would have become overly complicated and burdensome if all of those topics were addressed. The result would have come out as way too preachy. And a previously stated, there would have inevitably a tidal wave of complaints and disagreements about how the black characters were played.
I went to see this last week. What a pile of shit. It was so slow, definitely not what I'd call a horror. Even as a drama it was lacking. Also as was mentioned in the review video the leads were asked to loose weight but one of the young girls was definitely eating way more than anyone else in that house!
I think Nicole Kidman is a good actress but I think her face it too plasticked up to fit in a historic film anymore. Her face is not longer a natural human face.
I disagree her face has nothing to do with it.. shes just showing restraint in her expressions which is one of the most difficult style in acting, to show restraint but still evoke alot of emotions. Look it up please
HinduHillbilly You jealous piece of s--t. If Nicole wasn't in it, the movie would not get any attention. Nicole is beautiful and jealous people like you ruin this world.
I don´t agree. Nicole went through a really bad looking phase when she first touched her face (around Australia release, years ago already). Now it looks kind of normal for her age and the roles she does. She keeps nailing them because she is agreat actress. And she is very brave with her choices btw. It would be better if she had never touched her face. But it doesn´t look especially bad now compared to almost any actress her age that has also touched theirs.
Apparently these 3 preferred Coppola's version. I was on an Eastwood marathon last year and watched The Beguiled for the first time, i liked it actually.
Shadowman4710 Remakes can take different creative directions. If they work out. You have two good movies. If not the original hold up. The Remake is mostly forgotten. Steven Soderbergh once said studios should actually try to mostly remake bad movies.
How in the hell can you not remember the slave character in the Siegel/Eastwood version? Did you actually watch it? She was really strong and smart, kind of an ironic observer (given her social position), and she added a whole other layer to the film - I found her ungorgettable. The Siegel version was much more edgy and bold, perhaps reflecting the period in which it was filmed (1971).
Actually, all the female characters were very weakly written. I am surprised that all the three reviewers seemed to prefer this version because, unlike the previous one, it didn't talk to the audience explicitly about their motivations, etc. But the problem was that in this film there was no character development or even anything about their background at all. In view of this, the reviewers could well be forgiven for not even able to remember how many students there were. (There were actually 5: Elle Fanning was the oldest; the youngest was the one that found the man; and three others that hardly mattered in the movie). Plus the lighting was so dim (bad) that most of the time you can distinguish one from the other. Why did the Fanning character suddenly get into bed with the guy? Why did the Kirsten Dunst teacher suddenly want the man to take her away? Was the Nicole character jealous and so performed an unnecessary amputation? I was not prepared for any of these because there wasn't any previous scene or development that made these actions convincing. Were they just sex-crazed as the man said?
Ben: "...the made for Lifetime movie starring me." Christy: "Oh yeah, who were you again, were you Reporter #2 this time?" Ben: "No I had a full scene with Jennifer Gray." Christy: "What's your name in it? Do you have a name?" lol savage!!
So I am following the paced development of this movie , and it is a lovely, serene , idyllic , they even prayed in JESUS's name - and I went like , this is very nice , then I went like, wait a minute , wait a minute , Nicole Kidmann is in this movie, remember what she did in "The Others", there is bound to be a sick twist !!! and there was !!! Listen , Nicole Kidmann is officially the queen of psychological thrillers !!! this is a slow burn movie that is very delicious !!! the acting , the build up , the plot twist, the ending , wowo epic, I loved this movie
Once you've seen a movie, your'e always gonna think the trailers are giving too much away. I've never thought that when I've seen the trailers first and then seen the movie.
Nah alot of comedies give way too much away especially the funniest parts so they can sell you on the movie then you see it and go "wow all the funny stuff was in the trailer." Alot of thrillers/horrors give away the best jump scares or too much of the plot if you pay attention. The most recent saw gave wayy too much away in the trailer and I liked the movie but felt like they gave too much away in the trailer.
Good point. The early 70's was a much edgier time - people didn't worry so much about being offensive or being criticized, it was almost a badge of honor.
92ninersboy the original wasn't feminist or racially inclusive...the slave was portrayed as the only woman not attracted to the white man (which is kind of racist itself as an assumption) who warns the others that the Yankee was the enemy... there's this dynamic to the original that makes me think the author was more concerned with upholding the Confederacy than with feminism or inclusiveness. I've read descriptions of all three of his novels. They all seem to point to "South good, North bad" if there's any political aspect to his novels at all its more likely "the South will rise again even if they have to possess peoples souls" (his last novel actually involves modern day people possessed by Confederate ghosts, which sounds pretty cool like Amityville Horror meets The Blue and the Gray). Assholes. All of you.
Regarding the costumes. While I do agree with the female costumes' being great in the movie, it seemed ridiculous they had so many good looking attires for the soldier. And not just some random sweater or pants, but very stylish ones.
I really liked it. Very well done and all the cast was great. Good tension. I don´t know if it would make my top10 of the year or anything. But it is very good stuff.
I think they should've developed the characters a little bit more. Dunst's character starts confessing her secrets out of nowhere it seems, and we ultimately don't really care about any of the women. Thirty more minutes would've made it more interesting and the women more likeable. Also, I disagree with you guys about Kirsten Dunst. She has aged terribly bad, she looks like a turtle now, and she isn't even 40 yet, I guess. She's not gorgeous at all. I was shocked when I saw her in Hidden Figures, she looks awful.
I'm always confused why ppl are so obsessed with Kristen Dunst or describe her as gorgeous... to me it did come across as he was sweet talking her bc to me KD is very average and a "plain jane." just my opinion tho.
Please people, see the version of the great Don Siegel at 1971, its a movie irreverent, more real, dark, with more ambiguous characters. The Sofia´s version its a very light version. And is also more interesting as Siegel without answering all these actual nonsense of political correctness, quotas of gender and race, manages to do a better job and realistic focus.
dear lady, this is not a "horror" movie, but so called a very shitty movie lol...Copolla is probably the only female director worthy of appraisal and respect, but she missed a mark big time with this one. I liked the cinematography though, but what the hell was the plot about? Is it a feminist flick, designed to show how deceiving and evil men are? If so, it failed to showcase it since all of the ladies in this flick were as equally wicked or even more so, including even the little girls. If this is a thriller, it also failed in this aspect since there was nothing thrilling ir suspenseful here either. All in all, it tried to hit many notes, but failed to combine them into a proper melody.
Get out of her lane? For a white filmmaker? Do people hear themselves when they say stupid shit like that. Alonso probably thinks the students at Evergreen have some valid points too. I love WTF but sometimes I'm feel like I'm watching TYT.
Unbiased? Are you joking? I like Chris a lot but he's very biased about comic book movies, action or oscar-nominees. Comic book movies he oversells especially. He gives A's to oscar-nominees or comic movies that are formulaic and only above average. He also rarely ever gives foreign films a chance. He's fair but to say he's unbiased is a joke. WTF aren't perfect, but I find them much more critical than Chris.
What a surprise! Three white reviewers have no problem with the black character, the slave in a Civil War-era story based in Virginia, disappearing. Didn't even REMEMBER the character in the original story. Pathetic. Just astounding.
I completely agree, How could you forget that character. If Coppola was afraid to include her because she didn't want to step on any one's toes (like the southern market), or facing any criticism of how she deals with the racial issue, that's just sad. She has a tendency toward art house-light - picture postcard sensibility - nothing that really cuts that deep.
I didn't think this was a good movie. It had a few moments, but I believe Sofia Coppola had erased the edge from Thomas Cullinan's novel. Nor did it help that she had completely remove any African-American characters from the story. Apparently, in Ms. Coppola's eyes, black women aren't women. I'm beginning to suspect that Ben Mankiewicz, Christy Lemire and Alonso Duralde had felt the same. Watching this video disgusted me.
uninspiring film. The movie seemed to dark (visually) , esthetics, plot, acting, were boring. Elle plays the same character in every movie. (20th century women) this is Sophia 's wackest film. no signature music tracks. Another feminist , naval gazing bore fest. The last couple of movies that I've watched have all had the same plot line. Beguiled, Elle, girl on the train. Women murder men and never get punished.
Sofia Coppola movies suck. I saw lost translation years ago and didn't like that either. All them women wanted him. He was useless when his leg was gone and pissed. There is no deepness to it, it there in your face. Folks always trying to make a art of it. He had his choices and made the bad one. No reason to kill him. He was gonna leave anyways.
Not every movie is for everyone, some people are obsessed with "diversity", if the film doesn't appeal to you don't watch it. Stop being racist and wanting to see someone that looks like you in every single film.
No that's not the case this is the case bc there were important black female characters in the book and 1971 film adaption but sofia took the black female slave character (who in the book and 1971 film have the most intimate and important relationship with the solider) and whitewashed the mixed race white passing teacher into Kristen dunset.
Every Feminist-infected (femininity-lost) woman will "love it". It is a subtle excuse for them to 'get off' on the mutilation and poisoning of a red-blooded male in such a situation -- a typical Feminist fantasy situation. Sure, such events could happen (like having to have your leg amputated) but why write such a story? Why choose to make a film of such a story? Bourgeois art even unconsciously reflects the doomed nature of this society. All 'serious' novels, plays & films have to be DARK. Everything going right is fashion-designated as "corny" or "naive" or "twee" (unless it's in praise of the old aristocracy). But I loved "Blue Lagoon" for that reason. Sure there were serious challenges, but, just as real people can, and as real love can, it all ended positively, with a mostly-positive journey. I like how Eckhart Tolle said he can summarise all current stories, novels, plays, films, in 3 words: 'Something goes wrong.'
5ergio 6arcia - Why do you say that? They are doing more and more television program reviews with different critics (American Gods recently started) and I think that is great.
5ergio 6arcia This channel's views had always remained steady in the thousands to the tens of thousands on average. And besides, "What the Flick?!" is part of the juggernaut which is the TYT network, so no they're not going anywhere.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
You can really tell the difference between modern movies and movies in the sixties and seventies by their teeth. Everyone in modern movies has shockingly white teeth.
Cold Duck Cigarettes. Also everything's more fake.
all he had to do was go to the right bedroom lol
It left me wondering what would have happened if he went into Nicole's bedroom - would she then let him remain there? or.... ?
Lol
He was drunk
@@malachiy13 1. no he wasnt 2. even if someone is drunk f*cking your way through isnt an excuse for anything
@@demeraradove I dont think there was any good outcome with him staying there
To have any kind of normal future he had to get away from there, possibly with Kirsten's character. Because him staying there would bring nothing good, the jealousy and rivalry would have remained
*shows trailer*
Alonso: "The trailer gives away fucking everything!"
Me: :(
simetra There's another version of the trailer that's a whole lot more revealing than the one they showed! I watched the other version and I was so upset :(
The commentators talked as if they were promoting the new version, but they seemed to overlook that the parts in the original that were (justifiably in their opinion) left out were in fact crucial in understanding the characters.
(1) The black slave girl was crucial in understanding the soldier character. In fact, she was the first he approached to get help to escape, telling her that they were "on the same side" (he being a Yankee). It was only after that failed that he tried to manipulate the other women.
(2) The youngest girl Amy: Are we to suppose that she agreed to poison the man because he killed her turtle? Actually, in the original, he tried to play lover to her too and kissed her on the mouth in their very first scene. Later, she told the man that she didn't believe the teacher's accusation but then broke down and asked: "But why were you in her room? I thought I was the one you loved." Disturbing, for sure (she was like 12), but again important in showing what kind of man he was.
(3) In the original, in addition to the French teacher, he tried to seduce the headmistress too. The latter had an unhealthy relationship with her own brother, now missing because of war. The soldier did much "research" into this history and tried to substitute in his place.
Some of those elements above were disturbing, but all were important in understanding the characters and their motivations. The Sofia Coppola film was lacking in this regard.
Black slave WOMAN. In both the novel and the 1971 movie, she was a woman, NOT A GIRL. Good grief!
I'm starting to think Ben just shows up, grabs a cup of coffee and tells the cameras to roll. He never seems prepared for a review. "Was it set in Virginia?" "Were there six girls?" Geez, Ben, did you even see the movie? And, you can take notes on your smartphone, now; you don't even need pen and paper. Keep up, please. As for the movie itself, I'm not a Nicole Kidman fan, but Christy persuaded me it's worth seeing with her sheer enthusiasm. I won't trek out to the theatre to see it, but I'll probably check it out when it comes on Amazon Prime or something.
Ben comes off bored, unprepared and uninterested - like he was up all night and in need of sleep. The fact that he doesn't even remember the slave character in the Siegel/Eastwood film speaks volumes. I've seen him this way in other reviews. I like him fine on TCM, although he pales next to Robert Osborne. Those established Hollywood names can take you far, though - as in Mankiewicz and Coppola.
These characters are not just women, they are Confederate woman. They proudly assert their southernness, emphasise “southern hospitality,” and their Confederate allegiance as Christians. Miss Martha interacts with Confederate soldiers with kindness, clearly taking a side. These gender dynamics are absolutely racial, whether we choose to acknowledge that at all. The “Southern belle,” especially, is a figure that romanticises the economic prosperity that rises from slave labor-she cannot exist without the slave. Their so-called “proper” femininity cannot be separated from that of the black woman, as invisible as she is in the film.
I saw the movie tonight. Yes, it is beautiful to look at but it didn't do it for me. I loved the original, mostly bc the tone, the sinister quality had me riveted. Like Ben said, I was confused by this version's character motivations esp Colin Farrell. I felt like the tension and the foreboding quality was missing. Many of the people in the theater were laughing their asses off. I guess it was funny!???
How do examine gender dynamics in the Confederate South without intersecting race?
It isn't difficult if race was not present.
Don't Touch My Hair because black women are women duh! Just black /s
I might be wrong about you but I suspect that If you went down South and mingled amongst white southerners you would be surprised at how welcoming most of them are and how much about the way they live and interact with each other has little to nothing to do with race. Don't get me wrong, I'm not black and I know they have their issues with race but then so do most regions of the country. But just like you go through your day NOT reflecting on your personal issues with race so do they. In fact it is quite possible and probably quite common to go through life never reflecting on that issue and not being perturbed one way or the other. You referenced "gender dynamics". Can you reference gender dynamics in Canada without mentioning the quasi genocide that populations of indigenous women are going through? How about poverty? Or wage disparity? In other words, just because this movie is a period piece from a time when there was slavery doesn't mean slavery and its ills have to be referenced or included in every story from that time.
someone should do a movie from the perspective of the earlier black bourgeois society which existed before th civil war
Don't Touch My Hair : I agree. Black women existed, and speaking of an ambivalent time...it seems so much richer. These women would have to confront their own assumptions and behaviors.
I generally agree with atheism wtf view once they love a piece.
Interesting how Americans have this paternal affection for their second generation first younger woman director...sam Seder has- not a joke (Trump talking Citizen Kane)...Orson Wells evidently could not crack Joseph Conrad. Hence FFC did {as if any one needs to know how I moved from A to B.
It was such a good movie but how it disturbed me !:(
well i do declare
Curious to see if anyone comments on the misogyny inherent in the first movie.
Answer: Nope
Is this a review of the "first movie"?
this movie was a tease. just when it starts to get interesting it pulls away and doesnt go for it.
Why do people generalize and dehumanize the plight of people of color, by calling it politics? We are more than politics we are people with intelligence,vulnerabilities, and such strengths. Don't erase us for your conveniences, then tell us your doing us a favor.
And there you go! The director would have been damned if she included the topic of race as she is not being damned for not addressing it.
exactly!!!!!
My favorite part is he he threw the turtle 😂😂😂
The clint eastwood original was WAYYYYY better !
Who would have ever thought Kirsten dunst could have a double chin!??😆😆😆 I love that she didn't lose weight for the role...I noticed this in the movie myself. She actually looks like a real woman, instead of a Hollywood waif. So refreshing.
She had a double chin I hadn't noticed . I been crushing on her since I was a kid during Spider-Man 1
I've seen both of the movies. The lack of emotion in the women is what put me off to the second movie, their constant stoic expressions. I understand what she Sofia Coppola was presenting to the audience with the scenes all being so dark in the beginning... their boredom, loneliness, the Civil war and the horror of it all as well as losing loved ones, Victorian times where candles and oil burning lanterns the only source of light, I get all of that, but none of it pulled me into the characters and story, In fact it left me irritated. Yes as John got well the scenes were filled with more light suggesting the moods of the women. I have to say I prefer the first movie much more so than the second. That is just my personal opinion.
The Eastwood's version was more creeper.
What's better as a movie to see on a date, this or Get Out?
I like that Ben points out the run times of movies. So many movies nowadays are far too long. Oftentimes a movie benefits from a shorter run time. Not always but a lot of the time.
Hey guys, fyi: I saw the movie today and the credit says the script is based on both the novel AND the screenplay of the Don Siegel version. So it's self admittedly a remake.
On my word... That terminator t-shirt that the lady is wearing.. Awesome!
I find it so funny when white directors try to justify the lack of diversity and/or the whitewashing in their works by expressing discomfort in portraying characters of color. Like, are POC really that alien to white people? They can direct monsters, historical figures, superheroes, etc, but not a POC. Also, Sofia Coppola's excuse about how she didn't want black girls to see such representation in her film is straight up bullshit. She's adamant about how her movie is an adaptation of the book, not the 70s movie, but instead of including Edwina, a white-passing mixed race teacher whose character was not included in the original movie, she whitewashed it by essentially transforming it into Dunst's character. She could have included this character, have some non-white representation not centered on slavery, and interestingly explore the intersections of her identity (being a teacher in an all-white school, her race, gender, passing privilege, etc), but she chose not to. I'm not one bit surprised by it, though. After all, Coppola's brand of feminism is straight up white feminism as made very clear by some of her comments. When she says that she's exploring the gender dynamics of the time, not the racial ones, she suggests that white women have no race, a particularly ironic idea in the context of the post civil-war South and that black women have no gender, a fucked up concept we keep see again and again in comments made by Hollywood feminists. It's almost as if they don't see black/Non-white women as women, so you have people like Elizabeth Banks forgetting about The Color Purple when trying to argue that Spielberg has never had a female lead and Patricia Arquette saying that since women have helped out other marginalized groups, now these groups have to fight for women as if these groups don't include women. The irony of it all is that this type of thinking is racial in nature because it comes from America's view of whiteness as the norm, so understandably white womanhood is also seen as the norm. I would really appreciate it if people would stop perpetuating this idea by describing both this movie and Coppola as champions of female representation in film since the more accurate description is that they both champion WHITE women in film.
In the original Siegel film the slave character didn't distract at all from the film (what you call "race nonsense") - it strengthened it, gave it more spine. There was a real complex dynamic between the slave, the union soldier and the female teachers and students that operated on both an erotic and historical level. Have you seen the Eastwood version? If not, it's really worth checking out.
The movie would have become overly complicated and burdensome if all of those topics were addressed. The result would have come out as way too preachy. And a previously stated, there would have inevitably a tidal wave of complaints and disagreements about how the black characters were played.
I went to see this last week. What a pile of shit. It was so slow, definitely not what I'd call a horror. Even as a drama it was lacking. Also as was mentioned in the review video the leads were asked to loose weight but one of the young girls was definitely eating way more than anyone else in that house!
I think Nicole Kidman is a good actress but I think her face it too plasticked up to fit in a historic film anymore. Her face is not longer a natural human face.
I agree.
HinduHillbilly so true and so funny
I disagree her face has nothing to do with it.. shes just showing restraint in her expressions which is one of the most difficult style in acting, to show restraint but still evoke alot of emotions. Look it up please
HinduHillbilly You jealous piece of s--t. If Nicole wasn't in it, the movie would not get any attention. Nicole is beautiful and jealous people like you ruin this world.
I don´t agree. Nicole went through a really bad looking phase when she first touched her face (around Australia release, years ago already). Now it looks kind of normal for her age and the roles she does. She keeps nailing them because she is agreat actress. And she is very brave with her choices btw. It would be better if she had never touched her face. But it doesn´t look especially bad now compared to almost any actress her age that has also touched theirs.
Wow, I didn't know they remade Clint eastwood's film!
I just don't understand why they bothered. The first one was good enough.
Apparently these 3 preferred Coppola's version. I was on an Eastwood marathon last year and watched The Beguiled for the first time, i liked it actually.
Shadowman4710 Remakes can take different creative directions. If they work out. You have two good movies. If not the original hold up. The Remake is mostly forgotten. Steven Soderbergh once said studios should actually try to mostly remake bad movies.
How in the hell can you not remember the slave character in the Siegel/Eastwood version? Did you actually watch it? She was really strong and smart, kind of an ironic observer (given her social position), and she added a whole other layer to the film - I found her ungorgettable. The Siegel version was much more edgy and bold, perhaps reflecting the period in which it was filmed (1971).
The plot of this movie is SO stupid. Farrell is charming but Dunst seemed more like a dead fish to me.
Actually, all the female characters were very weakly written. I am surprised that all the three reviewers seemed to prefer this version because, unlike the previous one, it didn't talk to the audience explicitly about their motivations, etc. But the problem was that in this film there was no character development or even anything about their background at all. In view of this, the reviewers could well be forgiven for not even able to remember how many students there were. (There were actually 5: Elle Fanning was the oldest; the youngest was the one that found the man; and three others that hardly mattered in the movie). Plus the lighting was so dim (bad) that most of the time you can distinguish one from the other. Why did the Fanning character suddenly get into bed with the guy? Why did the Kirsten Dunst teacher suddenly want the man to take her away? Was the Nicole character jealous and so performed an unnecessary amputation? I was not prepared for any of these because there wasn't any previous scene or development that made these actions convincing. Were they just sex-crazed as the man said?
Wow Christy savages Ben at the end there. Not even sure it was warranted
What? How?
Ben: "...the made for Lifetime movie starring me."
Christy: "Oh yeah, who were you again, were you Reporter #2 this time?"
Ben: "No I had a full scene with Jennifer Gray."
Christy: "What's your name in it? Do you have a name?"
lol savage!!
I was only being half-serious
Dear film industry, Please stop trying to convince me that Elle Fanning is sexy. It's just not working. Thanks.
Are you blind? No seriously... Are you blind?
So I am following the paced development of this movie , and it is a lovely, serene , idyllic , they even prayed in JESUS's name - and I went like , this is very nice , then I went like, wait a minute , wait a minute , Nicole Kidmann is in this movie, remember what she did in "The Others", there is bound to be a sick twist !!! and there was !!! Listen , Nicole Kidmann is officially the queen of psychological thrillers !!! this is a slow burn movie that is very delicious !!! the acting , the build up , the plot twist, the ending , wowo epic, I loved this movie
Once you've seen a movie, your'e always gonna think the trailers are giving too much away. I've never thought that when I've seen the trailers first and then seen the movie.
Nah alot of comedies give way too much away especially the funniest parts so they can sell you on the movie then you see it and go "wow all the funny stuff was in the trailer." Alot of thrillers/horrors give away the best jump scares or too much of the plot if you pay attention. The most recent saw gave wayy too much away in the trailer and I liked the movie but felt like they gave too much away in the trailer.
Alonso: " It can't be easy playing a role that was once myself by-"
Ben: " - they're all ! They're all! They're all!..."
Wtf?
Can anyone explains to me why a White feminist woman in 2017 can't make a more feminist racially inclusive movie than a white man from 1971?
Good point. The early 70's was a much edgier time - people didn't worry so much about being offensive or being criticized, it was almost a badge of honor.
Indeed! The current climate pretty much forced Coppola to exclude that character!
92ninersboy the original wasn't feminist or racially inclusive...the slave was portrayed as the only woman not attracted to the white man (which is kind of racist itself as an assumption) who warns the others that the Yankee was the enemy... there's this dynamic to the original that makes me think the author was more concerned with upholding the Confederacy than with feminism or inclusiveness. I've read descriptions of all three of his novels. They all seem to point to "South good, North bad" if there's any political aspect to his novels at all its more likely "the South will rise again even if they have to possess peoples souls" (his last novel actually involves modern day people possessed by Confederate ghosts, which sounds pretty cool like Amityville Horror meets The Blue and the Gray).
Assholes. All of you.
Thalassa... pretty much proves why Coppola chose to exclude the one character!
That trailer is _wildly_ unrepresentative of the film.
People call John Carpenter's The Thing a remake but I disagree.
Kirsten Dunst is pretty. I don't know about gorgeous. Eva Mendes, for example, is gorgeous.
I love Kristen Dunst and shes indeed very pretty IMO the other girl you mentioned idk
Alana Branch It's all subjective. I think Kirsten is very beautiful
Tooty Futts LOL!
Of course, all in the eye of the beholder.
Regarding the costumes. While I do agree with the female costumes' being great in the movie, it seemed ridiculous they had so many good looking attires for the soldier. And not just some random sweater or pants, but very stylish ones.
Spoilers?
I understand why the slaves were left out. In this political climate I think it would pull the audience away from the actual plot of the movie.
FUCK the current political climate
I really liked it. Very well done and all the cast was great. Good tension. I don´t know if it would make my top10 of the year or anything. But it is very good stuff.
It sucked!
exactly what I thought by this director. all her movies are so quiet
old enough to know the original, so I'm torn
this is like the naughty nuns joke from Holy Grail.
Remake of old Clint Eastwood movies?!?. Ok, I'm going to say it, here comes a future remake (flop/crap) of "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly".
It's gonna be epic...............
juan gomez that will never happen dumbass
I think they should've developed the characters a little bit more. Dunst's character starts confessing her secrets out of nowhere it seems, and we ultimately don't really care about any of the women. Thirty more minutes would've made it more interesting and the women more likeable. Also, I disagree with you guys about Kirsten Dunst. She has aged terribly bad, she looks like a turtle now, and she isn't even 40 yet, I guess. She's not gorgeous at all. I was shocked when I saw her in Hidden Figures, she looks awful.
I'm always confused why ppl are so obsessed with Kristen Dunst or describe her as gorgeous... to me it did come across as he was sweet talking her bc to me KD is very average and a "plain jane." just my opinion tho.
When Hollywood remakes Jaws, it's gonna be a remake of the masterpiece film not the book no one remembers.
Be looking fwd seeing a digital Bruce!
Please people, see the version of the great Don Siegel at 1971, its a movie irreverent, more real, dark, with more ambiguous characters. The Sofia´s version its a very light version. And is also more interesting as Siegel without answering all these actual nonsense of political correctness, quotas of gender and race, manages to do a better job and realistic focus.
"the trailer gives away everything"
still shows the trailer
thanks
Great that you complain about the trailer after you show it in the video.
different trailer///
Oh ok, thank you.
i always like ben and alonso's reviews
ben is such a biased reviewer, I prefer that other fat guy, the Turk?
Christy's inability to do simple division is distracting.
dear lady, this is not a "horror" movie, but so called a very shitty movie lol...Copolla is probably the only female director worthy of appraisal and respect, but she missed a mark big time with this one. I liked the cinematography though, but what the hell was the plot about? Is it a feminist flick, designed to show how deceiving and evil men are? If so, it failed to showcase it since all of the ladies in this flick were as equally wicked or even more so, including even the little girls. If this is a thriller, it also failed in this aspect since there was nothing thrilling ir suspenseful here either. All in all, it tried to hit many notes, but failed to combine them into a proper melody.
kimskis... I agree with you.
I agree. The trailer is the worst. Trailers usually are though. Never watch trailers, people. No exceptions.
Get out of her lane? For a white filmmaker? Do people hear themselves when they say stupid shit like that. Alonso probably thinks the students at Evergreen have some valid points too. I love WTF but sometimes I'm feel like I'm watching TYT.
if you want unbiased and fair reviews go to stuckman channel
Unbiased? Are you joking? I like Chris a lot but he's very biased about comic book movies, action or oscar-nominees. Comic book movies he oversells especially. He gives A's to oscar-nominees or comic movies that are formulaic and only above average. He also rarely ever gives foreign films a chance. He's fair but to say he's unbiased is a joke. WTF aren't perfect, but I find them much more critical than Chris.
5ergio 6arcia stuckmann isn't actually capable of complex thought. He's a creepy, unfunny, and akward idiot
Since this annoys you so much and it's always been a part of WTF why are you even complaining?
Yeah it's bullshit that Sophia Coppola and Ava DuVernay have to follow a different set of rules on the subjects they're allowed to tackle.
What a surprise! Three white reviewers have no problem with the black character, the slave in a Civil War-era story based in Virginia, disappearing. Didn't even REMEMBER the character in the original story. Pathetic. Just astounding.
I completely agree, How could you forget that character. If Coppola was afraid to include her because she didn't want to step on any one's toes (like the southern market), or facing any criticism of how she deals with the racial issue, that's just sad. She has a tendency toward art house-light - picture postcard sensibility - nothing that really cuts that deep.
This only confirms that Coppola made the right choice!
>forgets a character from a 40yo movie who happens to be black
>Is therefore racist
Hmm... who used the word "racist?" That would be YOU. One can be pathetic and non-racist. Try again.
Jesse Paredes but she didn't though cause the movie lacked complexity and was very dull
Really good movie!!I was on edge during all of it. Did not expect that at all👍👍👍
Do they Castrate the guy?
no
I just watched it. Oh my it was *HORRIBLE*. WHO LET THIS HAPPEN
Everyone listens up steemit.com pays more then TH-cam
ممكن مساعده بدي الفلم كامل بليييز ساعدوني
the trailer lied, i watched the movie and was very disappointed. movie sucked.
I guess Kirsten Dunst would be beautiful to Vikings .. perhaps.. but come on ... lol
The plot of this movie: A bunch of women kill a guy because they are jealous and there are no repercussions...
I didn't think this was a good movie. It had a few moments, but I believe Sofia Coppola had erased the edge from Thomas Cullinan's novel. Nor did it help that she had completely remove any African-American characters from the story. Apparently, in Ms. Coppola's eyes, black women aren't women. I'm beginning to suspect that Ben Mankiewicz, Christy Lemire and Alonso Duralde had felt the same. Watching this video disgusted me.
excited to see this!
uninspiring film. The movie seemed to dark (visually) , esthetics, plot, acting, were boring. Elle plays the same character in every movie. (20th century women) this is Sophia 's wackest film. no signature music tracks. Another feminist , naval gazing bore fest. The last couple of movies that I've watched have all had the same plot line. Beguiled, Elle, girl on the train. Women murder men and never get punished.
It is so borning
worst clint eastwood movie ever everybody know it so why re make it
Sofia Coppola movies suck. I saw lost translation years ago and didn't like that either. All them women wanted him. He was useless when his leg was gone and pissed. There is no deepness to it, it there in your face. Folks always trying to make a art of it. He had his choices and made the bad one. No reason to kill him. He was gonna leave anyways.
So low because it sucks. 90% of it nothing happens and the other 10% is a shitty resolution.
Not every movie is for everyone, some people are obsessed with "diversity", if the film doesn't appeal to you don't watch it. Stop being racist and wanting to see someone that looks like you in every single film.
No that's not the case this is the case bc there were important black female characters in the book and 1971 film adaption but sofia took the black female slave character (who in the book and 1971 film have the most intimate and important relationship with the solider) and whitewashed the mixed race white passing teacher into Kristen dunset.
Every Feminist-infected (femininity-lost) woman will "love it". It is a subtle excuse for them to 'get off' on the mutilation and poisoning of a red-blooded male in such a situation -- a typical Feminist fantasy situation. Sure, such events could happen (like having to have your leg amputated) but why write such a story? Why choose to make a film of such a story?
Bourgeois art even unconsciously reflects the doomed nature of this society. All 'serious' novels, plays & films have to be DARK.
Everything going right is fashion-designated as "corny" or "naive" or "twee" (unless it's in praise of the old aristocracy).
But I loved "Blue Lagoon" for that reason. Sure there were serious challenges, but, just as real people can, and as real love can, it all ended positively, with a mostly-positive journey.
I like how Eckhart Tolle said he can summarise all current stories, novels, plays, films, in 3 words: 'Something goes wrong.'
Love to see what would be said if he told a black filmmaker to stay in their lane.
this movie sucks
this channel is slowly dying
5ergio 6arcia - Why do you say that? They are doing more and more television program reviews with different critics (American Gods recently started) and I think that is great.
5ergio 6arcia This channel's views had always remained steady in the thousands to the tens of thousands on average. And besides, "What the Flick?!" is part of the juggernaut which is the TYT network, so no they're not going anywhere.
then unsubscribe and don't leave troll comments under every video, do you have nothing else to do?
Immuntocrap 2 oh fuck off
You are quickly dying.
This and True Grit are both remakes.