|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Aug 31, 2017 17:06:20 GMT
anyone agree? from a male point of view, cinema viewing is nothing but socially accepted leching. most of my favorite films have beautiful women in them. of course, there are other factors as well. but a beautiful woman helps a lot.
discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 31, 2017 17:09:55 GMT
Good point, Pimp. That's why I enjoy the Ma and Pa Kettle series so much.  OK, just kidding. Lee Remick in any film makes it just that much better. |
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Aug 31, 2017 17:17:08 GMT
Good point, Pimp. That's why I enjoy the Ma and Pa Kettle series so much. OK, just kidding. Lee Remick in any film makes it just that much better. even im a huge fan of LEE REMICK. here is what i wrote about A FACE IN THE CROWD: |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 31, 2017 17:20:32 GMT
Lee in ANATOMY (the film, not hers) even had virtuous Jimmy squirming ("All men -- you for instance, you're interested.")  |
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Aug 31, 2017 17:29:54 GMT
Oh, yes.
In an age where any amount of porn is seconds away, that we still appreciate beauty is encouraging. That's why I defend what some call gratuitous nudity in film: the pleasure it gives to many is not a small thing, and is an innocent pleasure compared to other things going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 31, 2017 18:14:33 GMT
One of the oldest maxims in film making, particularly in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 31, 2017 18:35:06 GMT
Just throwing this out for information and a bit of balance although I don’t want things to turn too serious:
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Sept 2, 2017 0:40:07 GMT
It's an interesting question. Woody Allen was asked why he writes so many films centred around women - he said he finds women more interesting. I suspect that's the case with many art film makers. I agree with Quentin Tarantino that men have always been good for "man on a mission" movies when it comes to genre filmmaking. Classics like Sidney Lumet's crime drama '12 Angry Men' (1957), John Carpenter's siege shocker 'The Thing' (1982), James Foley's crime mystery 'Glengarry Glen Ross' (1992) ... these are just great stories to tell, perfectly executed by all concerned. Tarantino originally wrote female parts in his screenplay for 'Reservoir Dogs' (1992) but then axed them. He considered Linnea Quigley to play a waitress but then cut the part before filming it (both are friends with filmmaker Craig Hamann). He went so far as to have Nina Siemaszko film for him, but this hit the cutting room floor when he made his decision. Check it out, she's always awesome ... Nina Siemaszko in 'Reservoir Dogs' - Background Police Check
With horror cinema, test audiences traditionally used to respond better to a woman in peril than a man in peril, so women tended to be cast in the leading roles. It harkened back to myths and fairy tales. Not sure if this still holds true with test audiences today. |
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 2, 2017 0:44:26 GMT
...Elizabeth Taylor was drop dead gorgeous in Ivanhoe with Robert Taylor. So yes, I agree...
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Sept 2, 2017 14:44:14 GMT
A beautiful woman can't make a movie better, but with help of publicity certainly can boost a movie...  One of them got an Oscar, the other got ridiculed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 14:53:01 GMT
I admit that if there is a woman i find attractive in a movie its a big chance that i will check it out. But a hot woman does not make a movie better or worse. So it has no effect on how much i like or dislike the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 2, 2017 17:38:45 GMT
...another example for me is Rebecca Romijn in Femme Fatale...she is the main character, is absolutely sexy, and made this move all the more enjoyable for me...
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Sept 2, 2017 20:29:34 GMT
An attractive man can make a film more enjoyable too.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 3, 2017 15:22:01 GMT
What strikes me odd is that when casting a movie they will take a play like Frankie and Johnnie which Kathy Bates played on stage and cast Michelle Pfeiffer in the film role as the "homely" character.
When they want to cast Monster they "uglify" Charlize Theron and ditto with Nichole Kidman in The Hours.
Why not employ equally talented actresses who are not classically beautiful?
Even "homely" has to be played by the "beautiful" made up to look different?
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 4, 2017 16:39:40 GMT
...^^^...very interesting post...^^^...
I never understood casting Charlize Theron in that film Monster
Then again, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Emily Blunt may not be drop dead gorgeous, but I find her very attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Sept 4, 2017 17:53:43 GMT
A handsome man can boost a movie, too.
Trouble is, it's really hard to find an actor with the looks of Cary Grant, Tyrone Power, or Randolph Scott today, what with the "thug" whiskers and those hideous tattoos!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Sept 6, 2017 21:08:32 GMT
We could all do with some 1960's era Ursula Andress about now.  |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Sept 6, 2017 22:59:39 GMT
Starting with her emerging from the sea in DR. NO!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wesley Crusher on Sept 6, 2017 23:14:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 9, 2017 2:21:34 GMT
teleadmBack to that picture of Sophia and Jayne. I wonder if Sophia quietly leaned over and told Jayne that she was nearing "wardrobe malfunction" territory.
|
|
