Posted by Johny at ppp33.chhill1.eticomm.net on November 04, 2000 at 16:20:51:
In Reply to: R-ratings posted by Vincent on November 04, 2000 at 13:52:20:
: As far as "feel god" movies go, I liked it a lot more than ALMOST FAMOUS.
I didn't, I guess it was the Kate Hudson angle that did it for me. The "sexual" angle felt a bit gratuitous in BILLY ELLIOT. I do have to give BILLY a lot of credit for balancing the coal miner's strike with the story, but then again I doubted his father would cross a picket line. They could have showed another way to prove he was willing to do anything for his son, especially when he never actually went to work.
And I don't know if this counts as a feel-good movie or not, but I liked NURSE BETTY better than any other picture like it this year.
: And, was wo the bully from RUSHMORE? The older brother was Jamie Draven, who was on the HBO miniseries THE BUTTERFLY COLLECTOR with Pete Postlethwait (spelling?).
I thought it might have been the older brother, but that was Stephen McCole. My mistake.
: I'm not so sure he was supposed to be an outright "genius" on the outset- : he's pretty damned clumsy actually, and then he stats to really get into : it and displays that elusive "something" that makes his teacher realize : he might be due for greatness. As far as the "tap dancing", I tink the idea was that he was into expressing himself in dance in general.
I thought that was the case at first, but by the time he had that audition at the Dance school I would have figured his example of dancing would be more refined. I never really believed they would let him into that school after that audition.
: I dunno, not all movies need to be "challenging" for me- some need just : be entertaining, and BILLY ELLIOT worked wonders for me in this department. I certainly tink as far as pure entertainment goes, the British seem to have an edge on the Americans (hense the undeserved R-rating).
You think Jack Valenti was just trying to get back at BILLY ELLIOT for crappy American product? heh heh...BILLY ELLIOT is much better than "feel good" garbage like...oh, I dunno. Pick a bad hollywood movie. If a kid wants to see this instead of something like CHARLIE'S ANGELS more power to them. They've heard the word fuck plently of times before they turn the ridiculously high age of 17 to be allowed to see it with some friends.
I don't mean to come off as a pretentious snob...hell, I love BASEketball for some reason. BILLY ELLIOT just felt long to me and that was my biggest problem with a movie meant simply for escape. It didn't anger me in any way, just wasn't my cup of tea in the end.
: So what did you think of REQUIEM? Another case of MPAA insanity- anal : rape by a mutant hamster gets a PG-13 (THE KLUMPS), but the single most : anti-drug movie I've ever seen gets an NC-17, and an innocuous story : about a kid who wants to dance gets an R. What are those morons at the : PAA smoking these days?
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is the best film of the year as far as I'm concerned. I haven't seen an audience as slow to get up out of their seats since THE WAR ZONE. The girl I was with even broke into tears during the final scenes. Just flat-out powerful in every aspect (acting, cinematography, score...)
Though it's unrated, this theater (a psuedo art/multiplex showing everything from REQUIEM to CHARLIE'S ANGELS) saw fit to declare it NC-17 on the marquee and put up a sign Artisan had apparently sent them declaring "Due to Graphic Sexual Content this theater will not admit anyone 17 AND UNDER" They even stationed carding ushers in front of the theater as a third checkpoint. I'd let my child see this film before PULP FICTION (and a hell of a lot more R-rated movies at that) anyday, but the MPAA really has a problem with stuff if it doesn't have a comic edge to it. If the final scene with Jennifer Connelly had been played out as a drunken party gag in SCARY MOVIE I guarantee it would have been R.
Johny