[moved to piefed] movies

4272 readers
1 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
601
 
 

Summary:

Mickey 17, known as an "expendable," goes on a dangerous journey to colonize an ice planet.

Director: Bong Joon-ho

Writer: Bong Joon-ho

Cast:

  • Robert Pattinson as Mickey Barnes
  • Naomi Ackie as Nasha Barridge
  • Steven Yeun as Timo
  • Mark Ruffalo as Kenneth Marshall

Rotten Tomatoes: 80%

Metacritic: 74

VOD: Theaters

602
 
 

cross-posted from: https://atomicpoet.org/objects/da9ba02a-d0fd-4287-b5ba-b2a5d27d6b02

I watched Irrational Man starring Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone, because I wanted to see something different.

I was tired of watching bad movies, so I thought, “Let’s go for a simple rom-com with some decent actors.” I had no idea what this movie was about—Prime Video just recommended it.

Well, it’s awful. It’s terrible in ways that felt particularly off. It’s clear this was written by a guy who can’t write women. All they do is obsess over men, especially the main guy, Abe Lucas, who’s a complete jerk with zero redeeming qualities.

Abe, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is supposed to be some troubled bad boy, but he’s just a drunk slob who does the bare minimum. And honestly, I don’t get why all the women on campus are into him. He’s not in shape, and the movie even says he’s not impressive.

The plot? It’s meant to appeal to white, middle-class liberals. Abe’s character is like a cheap version of Charles Bukowski meets Rodion Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment. It’s so heavy-handed, they even have him reading Dostoevsky.

But it doesn’t work. Raskolnikov was an idealist, while Abe’s just jaded and believes in nothing. So when he commits his crime, there’s no emotional weight. He doesn’t even seem to care except that he thinks it’s a game.

As for the love story? There’s no real one. The women just want to sleep with Abe because they think he’s some kind of god. I don’t get it—he’s just a professor with no original thoughts, but everyone’s obsessed with him.

Sure, Joaquin Phoenix is good-looking, but that’s not the point. The movie isn’t about him being hot. It’s about a narcissistic failure who commits a crime, and it just doesn’t work.

Emma Stone’s character is equally annoying. She talks about Abe like he’s some mythical figure, which no real woman would ever do. It’s just not believable.

And the dialogue? Everyone sounds like they’re trying way too hard to sound smart. It’s like they just threw in big words to make the characters seem intellectual.

And then I found out Woody Allen wrote and directed it. Of course he did. Abe Lucas is just Woody Allen imagining himself as a tortured genius.

I’m done with Woody Allen’s self-mythologizing. I was done years ago, and if I knew he was the mind behind this film, I probably wouldn’t have watched it. Irrational Man is a mess, and I couldn’t stand it.

@movies

603
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26441495

With Bong Joon Ho's 'Mickey 17' being his first film since 'Parasite,' we consider whether Best Picture gives directors a bump at the box office.

604
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26441508

Dr Richard “Harry” Harris has devised a way to push further than anyone else into one of the deepest, darkest cold-water cave systems in the world, well aware it might change the face of diving or kill him.

605
 
 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/25226920

Picture, if you will, a version of the esoteric sci-fi masterpiece “2001: A Space Odyssey” made after a cartoon anvil has landed on Stanley Kubrick’s head, causing animated canaries to circle overhead. The resulting film would probably look a lot like “L’Empire” (or “The Empire”), Berlin’s Silver Bear-winning French-language farce by filmmaker Bruno Dumont, who refracts the traditional space opera through a strange deconstructive prism.

As warring empires and prophecies descend upon an unassuming fishing town, aliens in human form prepare for an existential battle whose moral dimensions initially seem abstract and absurd. Rather than sleek, futuristic vessels, its spaceships take the form of gothic church spires and baroque palaces, Earth-bound designs that offer a clear-eyed view of the religious and political power that drives the warring factions up above.

Dumont, whose last film “France” satirized the French news media landscape, tips over the edge of madness with “L’Empire.” A send-up of the popular sci-fi tradition — beginning with “a galaxy far, far away” — it takes potshots at genre storytelling that draw from the real world while also eschewing it.

606
 
 

The big-screen revival is taking place Sunday, May 4 and Wednesday, May 7

607
 
 

cross-posted from: https://atomicpoet.org/objects/81350f2f-38cf-4f14-b9e3-f201682ac439

Candy (1968) is the worst film I've ever seen. I'm shocked that Roger Ebert gave it three stars and that most critics in the '60s liked it.

Now, you might be wondering what possessed me to watch a film this old. Well, here's the cast:

  • John Huston
  • James Coburn
  • Richard Burton
  • Marlon Brando
  • Walter Matthau
  • Charles Aznavour,
  • in the role of Candy herself, Ewa Aulin

Oh, and one more cast member shocked me: Ringo Starr. Yes, Ringo fucking Starr is in this film, playing a Mexican—badly. Specifically, a Mexican gardener with aspirations of becoming a Catholic priest. Yes, I can't believe it either.

So, what's this film about? Supposedly, it's a sex farce—a satire of pornographic plots that I guess were in vogue at the time. I don't know, I don't research old porn. But I assume the director thought the subject deserved satirization. The movie itself is based on the 1958 novel Candy by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg, which in turn is based on the 1759 novel Candide.

I watched this film from beginning to end. It was a chore. I could barely get through it. It's supposed to be funny. Maybe people in the '60s thought it was a laugh riot, but I didn’t understand a single thing. There were a few moments that could have been funny—the poet with his hair blowing in the wind, Marlon Brando playing a guru (he tries his goddamn best with what he's given, but ultimately, he can't save it).

But let me stop tap-dancing around it: this whole film is just a series of vignettes—episodic "adventures" with our titular heroine, Candy. And Candy is played as stupid. A naive—a high school student, no less. And she spends the bulk of this movie being sexually assaulted and raped. Over and over again. The constant theme of this movie is that every man who comes into contact with Candy can't resist her. They become overwhelmed with lust, and she is assaulted, blackmailed, and abused at every single turn. And it's all played for laughs.

Ha ha, Candy. Stupid Candy. How dare you exist? For the crime of existing, we're going to make your life a living hell.

The film presents all this as though it’s just a frolic. Candy just, you know, oopsie-daisies her way into sexual violence. Now, I should clarify: this is not a pornographic movie per se, though it attempts to skewer pornography. There is some nudity, but no actual sex happens on screen. And in many ways, that makes the movie even more horrifying. Because every single event, as ludicrous and ridiculous as it is, could plausibly happen in real life. Candy goes to school. Candy tries to take care of her father. Candy visits an Italian restaurant. And just for being herself, she can’t catch a break.

And it’s not just the sexual assault—it’s the racism. So much racism. I’ve already mentioned Ringo Starr’s terrible portrayal of a Mexican, but it doesn’t stop there. Italians, Polish people, Irish people, Black people—they all get it. And then there’s Sugar Ray Robinson in a cameo. What role does he play in this movie? A chauffeur. The greatest athlete of the 20th century, reduced to that. What the actual hell?

There’s a scene involving gay and transgender characters, and if you want a stark reminder of how horribly they were treated in the '60s, this film provides it. Not that anyone needs a reminder.

And then, there’s the ending. It’s so horrifying, so terrible, so absolutely disgusting that I can’t even bring myself to describe it. There is no way this film could be made today. Hell, even 10 or 20 years ago, no studio would touch it. I’m not trying to be coy about spoilers here—the ending is just that bad. It left me feeling awful.

Even so, what fascinates me about Candy is that this film could have only been made in 1968. That singular year. Not two years earlier, not in the '70s. Even then, theatres would have looked at this film and said, "This is so offensive, there’s no way we’re showing it." And yet, somehow, they got the crème de la crème of Hollywood to be in it. How? How did they get John Huston, Marlon Brando, and Richard Burton to sign on to this?

The whole movie is very hippie-dippy, filled with psychedelic effects. The film basically turns into an acid trip. At the very end—right after the most traumatizing thing possible happens to her—Candy walks into a field full of literal hippies playing music. She sees all the characters she encountered throughout the film doing ridiculous things, and then—she transforms into an ethereal being and ascends into space. Yes. That is the actual ending of Candy. Sorry if I spoiled it for you, but you literally can’t get any more 1968 than that.

After watching this film, experiencing it from beginning to end, I can’t help but wonder: what was life really like in the 1960s? I was born in 1981, so I missed out on that era. But for someone who lived through it—how would they even interpret this film? Because I feel like you need the lens of someone who lived through that time to properly understand it.

Hell, I’d love to talk to women who lived in the '60s and ask them: what was life like for you? How different was it? I’ve read some Andrea Dworkin. I come to her work as a heterosexual man, and at times, I disagree with much of what she says. But after watching Candy, I get where she was coming from. I’m a hell of a lot more sympathetic to her stance on pornography. If you had lived through this time—especially this time—I can see how you’d reach the conclusion that pornography socialized men to become rapists.

Now, I don’t think that’s the function of erotica in general. I don’t think erotica is morally wrong. I’m not trying to stigmatize desire. But we are all products of our environment, of our culture. And judging 1968 by Candy—a film that got great reviews, attracted Hollywood’s elite, and was even a box office success—the fact that this film succeeded at one time, in one era, is telling.

Wow. Candy is horrible. I don’t recommend it. I feel terrible for having watched it. The only positive thing that came from this experience is that I now have a little more understanding of where feminists like Andrea Dworkin were coming from.

@movies@lemmy.world

608
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26425341

Bong Joon Ho's 'Mickey 17' at $118M cost looks to flop at the box office with a $45M global box office start.

609
 
 

cross-posted from: https://atomicpoet.org/objects/5fd59303-5531-4b6a-be8b-fe3453e8d0f7

The worst thing about Heist (2015), starring Robert De Niro, is the title. This is not a heist film.

I mean, it is for the first 15 minutes or so, but then it turns into Speed. Remember Speed, the ’90s thriller starring Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves? Yeah, Heist is more like that—down to the fact that most of it takes place on a bus that has to keep moving or else disaster strikes.

But you know what? I actually like Heist. I think the majority of critics got it wrong. At its core, it’s a fun thriller that makes the most of its all-star cast—which is stacked, by the way. Apart from Robert De Niro (who, for the record, does an excellent job), the film stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Dave Bautista, Kate Bosworth, Gina Carano, and even Morris Chestnut, who turns in a fantastic performance, breathing menace into every scene.

Is Heist as good as the films it was inspired by? No. But it’s certainly better than the forgettable Netflix fare that dominates today. The film has spectacle, great special effects, excellent sound mixing, high stakes, and plenty of action. And you know what else? It’s funny at times—I laughed.

Critics didn’t like Heist. At least, the professional ones didn’t. Audiences, on the other hand, did. Right now, it holds a 6.1 on IMDb and a 2.7 on Letterboxd—above average. So what did the critics miss? Was it that Heist was a video-on-demand release with only a limited theatrical run? Was it because it was a genre film that wasn’t fashionable at the time? I don’t know. But this movie deserved far more respect than it got.

And let’s talk about Robert De Niro’s performance for a moment. In a lot of films like this, when De Niro is the big name, he’s often reduced to a glorified cameo, trotting out his usual mannerisms—a parody of himself. But here, as Francis “The Pope” Silva, a casino owner tied to the mafia, obstinate in his principles and facing his own mortality, he actually delivers. He could have phoned it in, but he gives the role gravity—something this genre rarely gets.

Now, I won’t pretend Heist is flawless. There are plot holes. A few moments border on the ridiculous. But if you accept the film for what it is—an action thriller that entertains and features some excellent performances—it’s absolutely worth recommending.

I’ve seen terrible films. Once you’ve sat through Mac and Me, Mutant Hunt, or anything made by The Asylum, you learn to appreciate the value of simple entertainment. A movie that holds your attention, that’s fun, exciting, and delivers spectacle—that’s worth something.

Heist isn’t perfect. It won’t change your life. But it’s better than average. And if you’re looking for a Robert De Niro film that may have escaped your notice, Heist is just the ticket.

https://youtu.be/BvJDL8v8lTk

@movies@lemmy.world

610
611
612
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26396097

Osgood Perkins explained why he will never direct a James Bond film because of IP owner and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

613
614
 
 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mickey_17

Are you planning on seeing it?

615
 
 
  • August 14: Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore
  • August 15: Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam
  • August 20: Philippines
  • September 11: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bolivia, Brazil, the Caribbean (Jamaica, Aruba, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Curacao), Central America, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland (Italian-speaking), Syria, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela
  • September 12: Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Finland, India, Kenya, Latvia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Romania, Southern Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States
  • September 17: Belgium, France, French-speaking Africa, Luxembourg, Switzerland (French-speaking)
  • September 18: Moldova
  • September 25: Austria, Germany, Switzerland (German-speaking)
616
617
 
 

cross-posted from: https://atomicpoet.org/objects/24380c76-d39c-4f8f-9a15-d75a74014b67

The moment I saw that Slaxx was made by the same folks behind Turbo Kid, I knew I had to see it.

Turbo Kid is one of my favorite post-apocalyptic movies ever—at least as good as, if not better than, Mad Max. So anything even remotely connected to Turbo Kid is a must-watch for me.

But Slaxx? Slaxx is nothing like Turbo Kid.

This is a movie about killer jeans—yes, jeans that literally murder people. It’s not even directed by the same people. Elza Kephart directed Slaxx, co-writing it with Patricia Gomez. Kephart has worked on a few genre films, mostly Canadian productions, and this one is no exception. It is unmistakably Canadian, right down to the name of the retail store where it’s set: Canadian Cotton Clothier.

More on that in a bit.

First, I have to emphasize that this horror film was not only written and directed by a woman, but it is clearly made for a female audience—which is absolutely fine. Historically, women have been some of the most passionate horror fans. You can see that reflected in Slaxx’s concerns.

Now, let’s talk about the premise: it’s completely ridiculous. The idea that an inanimate pair of jeans could kill people? Absurd. Well, technically inanimate—until they become possessed and start thirsting for blood. With a concept like that, you don’t expect much. This sits in the same realm as Killdozer!, Killer Sofa, and other “killer inanimate object” films. And yet, to my surprise, Slaxx actually wants to say something.

This movie has a message.

Granted, it’s not subtle—at all—but it’s clear. No fuzziness. Slaxx is a critique of performative activism in retail, especially in fast fashion. And this is a particularly Canadian concern. Here in Canada, ethical consumerism has been a huge marketing angle, especially with brands like Lululemon—founded and headquartered in my hometown, Vancouver. Lululemon originally positioned itself as wholesome and ethical, but over time, the mask slipped. The company was rocked by scandals, exposing how much of that “goodness” was a lie.

The founder of Lululemon, Chip Wilson, is basically Vancouver’s version of Elon Musk. Tesla started with promises of saving the planet, and look how that turned out. Wilson followed a similar trajectory, becoming a billionaire willing to sell out everyone for profit, even pushing extreme right-wing policies. Slaxx taps into that kind of corporate hypocrisy.

Inside the movie, the characters are broad stereotypes—but that’s fine, because this is a satire.

Our protagonist is a new hire, full of hope, believing in CCC’s (Canadian Cotton Clothiers) mission. She sees the company as a force for good. Through her eyes, we meet the rest of the cast:

  • The vain, image-obsessed influencers eager to show off their butts in the new jeans.
  • The sassy, smack-talking gay Asian guy.
  • The Indian girl who “doesn’t care” about anything but also resents being stereotyped—ironically making her a stereotype.
  • The visionary CEO, spewing corporate buzzwords and giving strong Chip Wilson vibes.
  • The smarmy, self-serving manager whose only goal is a promotion to regional manager.
  • And, of course, the real star of the show: the killer jeans.

Since this is a horror movie, expect plenty of blood, guts, and grotesque, over-the-top kills. They’re creative, they’re excessive, and they’re fun.

Now, onto the flaws.

First, Slaxx is lean. At 1 hour and 16 minutes, it moves fast. That’s great for pacing but comes at a cost—there’s zero character development. If you’re looking for emotional arcs, you won’t find them. This is a movie about action and message, not character growth.

Second, and maybe this is something only a Canadian would notice, Slaxx tries way too hard to be Canadian. I get it. In today’s political climate, certain extreme American right-wingers claim Canada “isn’t a real country.” But Canada does have culture. The problem is that sometimes it feels government-mandated. You can feel how much of Slaxx’s funding was likely tied to promoting “Canadian values.” And while I do believe in Canadian values, the way they’re pushed here feels heavy-handed.

The movie would have been more Canadian if it had just focused on critiquing Canadian corporations. Because let’s be real—Canadian retailers are shady as hell.

Take Peter Nygård, for example. His company, Nygård International, was once Canada’s largest producer of women’s apparel. And Peter Nygård? A convicted sex offender. He had been sexually abusing women since at least 1968, racking up charges in the ’80s, ’90s, and beyond. It took over 50 years for him to be held accountable. That is the kind of real-world evil that exists in Canadian fashion retail.

If Slaxx had leaned harder into that critique instead of doing the whole “look how Canadian we are!” routine, it would have been a stronger film. The real horror isn’t just possessed jeans—it’s the unchecked power of these CEOs. That’s where the movie could have gone deeper. That’s where it missed an opportunity.

So, what’s the final verdict?

I think Slaxx is fun. If you’re a horror fan, there’s plenty to enjoy. It’s fast-paced, funny, and has a clear message. It’ll especially resonate with women who’ve worked retail. If you’ve ever been stuck at a job like The Gap, this movie will either traumatize you or have you laughing your ass off.

Like, come on—they refer to sections of the store as ecosystems.

That kind of satire works. What drags the movie down is its lack of character development, its occasional preachiness, and its insistence on showcasing Canadian-ness rather than critiquing it.

So, do I recommend Slaxx?

Kinda. It’s not for everyone. But it’s better than terrible.

@movies@lemmy.world

618
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26351540

Cinemark CEO Sean Gamble said he sees Amazon MGM and Apple boosting the number of theatrical releases in the coming years.

619
 
 

cross-posted from: https://atomicpoet.org/objects/d800c11d-5687-4409-b7bd-a879d9be555d

Invasion of the Bee Girls. That’s a movie I’ve wanted to see ever since I spotted it in video rental stores.

It was always tucked away in the back, high up on the shelf, practically taunting me with its VHS box. Alas, when I was still seeing it in video stores, I wasn’t mature enough to watch it.

But what is Invasion of the Bee Girls?

It’s a sci-fi exploitation film written by Nicholas Meyer and directed by Denis Sanders—two very notable names. If you’re a Star Trek fan, you might recognize Nicholas Meyer as the guy behind the best Star Trek films. He wrote and directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. He also wrote, but did not direct, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

Invasion of the Bee Girls was the first movie he ever wrote.

Denis Sanders, meanwhile, is something of a cult figure in cinema. His most famous film is probably Shock Treatment—a wild movie, and if you haven’t seen it, you absolutely should. He also did the screen adaptation of The Naked and the Dead and directed the documentary Soul to Soul, about American musicians performing in Ghana. It’s one of the best music documentaries of the ’70s.

Invasion of the Bee Girls wasn’t the last thing Sanders directed, but it was probably the last movie of his to get a theatrical release. And what a movie.

The Premise

Being an exploitation film, there’s a lot of nudity. Pretty much every woman in this film shows her boobs, and there are a few butts. No genitals, though—this isn’t an X-rated film. But it does have quite a few triggering elements, and you probably don’t want to watch it around children. Or teenagers, for that matter.

Now, the premise—well, that’s a doozy.

The film takes place in a small town full of scientists, where men are suddenly dropping dead. The cause of death? Exhaustion. Specifically, they’re dying in the throes of passion—right in the middle of sex, their hearts just give out.

The U.S. government assigns the FBI to the case. Mind you, they only send one agent, which tells you how much of a priority they considered it at first. But given the title—Invasion of the Bee Girls—you can probably guess what’s behind these mysterious deaths.

That’s not a spoiler. If the key plot point is in the title, it doesn’t count as a spoiler. A good portion of the film is spent with investigators trying to figure out who is killing these men and how they’re doing it.

The Gender Subtext

Some say this movie is nothing more than an excuse to gawk at boobs. I disagree.

In fact, the movie itself explains its own subtext—and it’s actually pretty interesting. In less exploitative hands, this could have been a truly compelling film. The core idea here is about how men fear the thing they desire most. They desire sex, but they also fear it will kill them. Specifically, heterosexual men desire the love of a woman, but they fear that a woman will suck the life out of them—literally and figuratively.

I’m not saying that’s a rational fear. I’m saying that’s what this movie is about.

And here’s something funny: While watching, I realized this premise wouldn’t work if the genders were reversed. You couldn’t have a movie where women keep dropping dead after sex with men—not in this style, at least. If you flipped the genders, it wouldn’t be science fiction anymore. It would be real life.

Women do die at the hands of men, often in the context of intimate violence. And the scene that triggered this thought for me—trigger warning—was one where a female character is sexually assaulted by three men. She’s almost raped, and the film plays it off as just another plot device. The male hero swoops in, saves the day, and that’s that.

The fact that sexual assault was such a common, almost casual trope in films from the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s speaks volumes about rape culture—then and now. And that makes the whole premise of Invasion of the Bee Girls… well, strange.

The Lesbian Subtext

One thing that stood out to me is the film’s very real lesbian subtext. Or rather, not even subtext—it’s practically text.

The Bee Girls are heavily implied to be lesbians. They hunt down men, essentially to steal their seed. And, of course, in classic pulp sci-fi logic, this movie suggests that you could just flip a switch to make a woman a lesbian. Because, you know, science fiction.

This ties back to an interesting discussion I once heard: If a woman is walking through the woods, would she rather encounter a bear or a man? A lot of women would say the bear, because at least the bear isn’t malicious. That’s the kind of fear this movie plays with—except, of course, from a male perspective.

Yes, women can kill men, and yes, women do commit acts of intimate violence. But society doesn’t condition us to think of women as threats the way it conditions us to see men as threats. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong—I’m saying that’s just how it is.

And I bet there are plenty of women who, if they could, would turn off their attraction to men entirely. Some do, especially after experiencing trauma. But desire is a powerful thing.

And I can’t believe I’m talking about all of this in the context of Invasion of the Bee Girls.

Why This Matters

This is a dumb movie. It was not meant for deconstruction.

And yet, I genuinely believe that throwaway films like this—the ones designed purely for titillation—are the ones that need deconstruction the most. Even 50 years later, they tell us so much about the world we live in now.

The boys who grew up watching Invasion of the Bee Girls? They’re the ones in power now. They’re our politicians, our decision-makers. This is the world they were raised in, and for many of them, it’s the world they want to return to.

And honestly? We’re not that far removed from the world of Invasion of the Bee Girls. I just watched it on Amazon Prime.

Mind you, I’m probably one of the few people watching it now and actually thinking about it. But that’s the thing, isn’t it?

We live in a world shaped by gendered violence. Invasion of the Bee Girls is a fantasy about gendered violence—but flip the script, and it’s no longer fantasy. It’s just reality.

The 1970s, when this movie was made, was a time when cultural norms around gender and sex were being challenged—heterosexuality, monogamy, male authority in the household. Did we go too far in some respects? Maybe in the sense society back then didn’t value consent.

Until very recently, we didn’t even talk about consent. When I was in school, sex ed didn’t cover it. Now that I’m a father—a father of a daughter—I talk about consent all the time.

So what does Invasion of the Bee Girls really say? It speaks to the fear that desire leads to death. And by the end of the movie? Heterosexuality reigns supreme. The social order is preserved. The male protagonist gets to have his cake and eat it too.

Is Invasion of the Bee Girls a good movie? No. Is it worth watching? No. But is it worth critiquing? Absolutely.

And that’s why I find it fascinating, even though I don’t recommend it.

@movies@lemmy.world

620
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26351592

Actor Robert Pattinson is opening up about the status of filming the sequel to Matt Reeves' 2022 blockbuster 'The Batman.'

621
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26351488

The Fast and Furious star teased the Guardians of the Galaxy project, and many others, on his Instagram.

622
623
624
 
 

In the spirit of !buyeuropean@feddit.uk it isn't just about goods and services, soft power packs a punch.

So name your favourite European films. The article link is just to get you started.

625
view more: ‹ prev next ›