>what am I in for?
Not an actual biography of Marilyn Monroe. If you're not already familiar with her actual life story, the movie is legitimately going to be hard to follow, because it just assumes you know it, and then just starts making stuff up about actual events they expect you to be familiar with
>what am I in for?
One of the most disappointingly blandest NC-17 films in recent memory which, for some reason, this board is guilty of overhyping the frick out of (probably coomers). You're better off watch BitWC or Love (2015) instead.
A pleb filter. If you enjoy challenging movies that push the envelope then you’ll love it. The problem is that the subject matter of the movie is the type draw in the modern female audience wanting a girl boss movie but it’s really a movie for grown men who enjoy dark films. Think of david lynch mixed with darren Aronofsky making a psychological horror movie about a starlet in the 50’s. It’s completely misunderstood and in a few years will be remembered as a cult classic. I haven’t had this much fun going through letterboxd reviews in a while. Most of them boil down to “haven’t seen it but it’s mysogonistic so 1 Star”. Notice how none of these reviews actually talk about the film but more about the subject which their offended by.
Nah. It definitely tried to be those things, but the execution was shit. I don't hate it on morally outraged Film Twitter basedboy grounds, it just sucked.
I’m just going to have to disagree with you there. The cinematography, score, acting, pacing, were all executed at a high artistic level which is what gives it a pass in my opinion. As a fan of these kind of psychological thrillers it’s one of the best I’ve seen in years.
If it wasn't meant to be a story about an actual person that really lived, then yeah it was definitely visually very well shot and Ana de Armas gives a really powerful performance. But the problem is it's covering a real person with no actual connection to historical accuracy. That and the nudity and sex are just gratuitous. It's three hours long and she's naked for like half of that for absolutely no reason. It's at best ridiculous, and at worst disrespectful to the actual person and her legacy
>But the problem is it's covering a real person with no actual connection to historical accuracy.
I understand that and it’s valid criticism but personally I don’t care about historical accuracy. I’m just looking at the movie as a stand alone piece of art and it succeeds on all fronts in regards to that. Yea she was naked a lot in the movie but I’m almost 30 and can handle some boobas. I can understand how people can see it as gratuitous but personally I don’t have a problem with nudity in film. It’s not for everyone but if you enjoy these kinds of movies it’s a masterpiece. Too bad it’s marketed towards women in their early 20’s since this is not their kind of movie.
>I understand that and it’s valid criticism
Okay, then you get it, because that is what made most people not like this movie because it's about a real person and it blatantly and repeatedly misrepresents her and real events in her life. If you understand that, then you get why the vast majority of audiences and critics thought it despite being visually shot very well it's actual content to be very distasteful and didn't enjoy the film
2 years ago
Anonymous
You’re just repeating what you said the last time. I believe the vast majority of audiences and critics are misunderstanding the point of the movie. I understand the point they’re making but they’re also missing the point of the movie by projecting their own opinions on how the character should have been portrayed. If you’re emotionally intelligent enough to separate art from reality you’ll find the movie stands alone as an incredibly shot psychological thriller. If you want to be offended about something as trivial as a film portrayal of Marilyn Monroe by all means go ahead. But personally I can objectively look at the film the filmmaker intended to make and appreciate it. It’s just too bad modern audiences can’t separate that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I understand the point they’re making but they’re also missing the point of the movie by projecting their own opinions on how the character should have been portrayed.
I don't think so because the person being portrayed isn't actually a fictional character. This would have worked much better as a completely separate work of fiction disconnected from any actual people or events (though the gratuitous nudity and sex would still have been a problem for many people I suspect, on the grounds that it serves no real purpose to the story), but the problem is that it IS, and it's severely misrepresenting real people. And not just a little bit here and there with artistic license- the film completely misrepresents the character (I mean that in the sense of her moral composition, not a literary character) of the woman and her life and how she behaved and felt about it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Youre not adding anything new to this discussion you’re just saying “I don’t think so” and then repeating the same point twice now. Again, if the portrayal of Marilyn Monroe is so offensive to you that you can’t look at the movie objectively then that’s fine. But if you can separate art from reality and appreciate the movie as its own work, regardless of how you may feel about the portrayal, you’ll find an incredible movie. It’s sad modern audiences would rather be offended then to have their perceptions challenged. In this day and age people would rather be offended over things that don’t actually effect them instead of having to have a critical thought.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If it sounds repetitious it's because it's in response to you saying that you understand the criticism, and then proceeding to disregard it. Meaning you don't actually understand the criticism. If you actually did you wouldn't disregard it.
Your entire perspective seems to be one of >This meal was excellently prepared and the ingridients were all fresh and very well sourced >Yes, but there was a giant piece of shit sitting in the center of the plate >...yes I understand that, but I find that if you can look past that you'll see it was an exceptional dish
Lmao- "But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
2 years ago
Anonymous
There’s a difference between understanding and agreeing. I understand the point I just disagree. Your shit in the hamburger metaphor does not work because you’re the one projecting the shit on the burger in the first place. I’m enjoying the hamburger for what it is. You’re telling me I shouldn’t enjoy it because you’re projecting a piece of shit on it based on what you think the burger should be. When in reality it’s just a tasty burger.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you’re the one projecting the shit on the burger in the first place.
No, because by saying you understand the criticisms of the movie you're acknowledging the shit in the food. You're not saying it doesn't exist and there was no shit, you're saying you're aware it's there, and you think people are dumb for calling the food bad when they could just eat around it
2 years ago
Anonymous
I’m not acknowledging your criticism of the movie as valid I’m saying I understand how you could could come to your conclusion. If you’re a completely close minded person and absolutely can’t accept another interpretation no matter how offensive it may seem then yea I’d be offended too. But I personally don’t care about Marilyn Monroe and neither should you really. She’s been dead for 60 years and you did not know her. Modern audiences have to find something to be offended about when in reality it doesn’t matter. If you look at the movie objectively you’ll see that everything this movie sets out to do it does incredibly well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except if you're saying that, then you don't actually acknowledge it to be valid criticism. The movie objectively is about a real person and does actually substantially misrepresent her, and you're saying look past that. What I'm saying is if they had just simply made this about an entirely fictional character they'd have had none of these criticisms
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why is it so hard for you to accept that these things could have happened to marilyn? At least some of them probably did.
I bet you totally 100% know for a fact that Kevin space isn't a rapey gay pedo either.
I think Marilyn's rise to stardom looked a lot more like Blonde than whatever tv movie bullshit you want ld Hollywood to operate like.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Look, I grant you the Hollywood casting couch stuff. That has been well known for decades, so no doubt a babe like Marilyn who wasn't a very good actress early in her career, seems like the type who only got into films after getting fricked by decrepit old israeli studio bosses. But it takes two to tango. She wanted to be a star, just like Harvey's girls wanted to, and they went along with it because in their mind it was worth it. So I don't by the #metoo victim bullshit. If you didn't want to frick & suck gross old fat producers and studio bosses in order to be a rich popular movie star, then go be a waitress or a nurse or whatever and keep your dignity.
LMAO, how can anyone call it misogynistic with a straight face? I'm a man and watching this film literally made me hate all the male characters featured in it.
There was an interview with the director on NPR, he claimed he wrote the screenplay 14 years ago and got rejected because it was too anti-male for the time.
There was also an interview he did with Vanity Fair recently where he explained he hadn't actually seen many of her movies and didn't really like here as an actress
That's the really fricked up part about how this movie misrepresents her. In real life Marilyn Monroe actually had TWELVE abortions. She was not a person that had a problem with abortions. It just completely misrepresents the actual person's feelings and views on the issue
No one is arguing the real woman didn't actually have a severe addiction problem, but it's actually a fact she really did have 12 abortions. That's not a thing a person that hates abortions does. The movie paints her as a woman that was forced into having an abortion against her will and deeply regretted it for the rest of her life, but the reality of the situation is the actual person in real life was trying to hit the high score
After the first 2, the next 10 get a lot easier i guess?
Maybe she felt complex because she was supporting her mother and other friends and family, and knew if she got pregnant the movie roles would stop? Maybe, in her mentally unwell mind she needed to be on screen and loved, and felt like she would be forgotten if she was mothering and not starleting? Maybe she was conflicted but doing what she thought was necessary?
A sane and healthy person does not get 12 abortions, so that kind of undermines your point too.
Just to put things in perspective, Marilyn Monroe died when she was 36 years old. Being amazingly generous here and saying she was just as sexually abused as the movie paints her out to be, if her periods first started when she was 12 and she began getting pregnant then giving her the largest time window conceivably possible, she would have been having an abortion every other year from the day she started being able to conceive until the day she died. This is not the behavior of someone that hates abortions and deeply regrets them
2 years ago
Anonymous
"When selling herself, or with romantic liaisons and long-time lovers, Marilyn, always eager to please, meekly agreed to men’s demands to have sex without contraceptives and got pregnant again and again"
This is from the same source as the claim she had 12 abortions. Does it really sound like she could have absolutely no regrets? Even when she is quoted saying she wants to be a mother more than anything?
You're projecting your own modern sensibilities onto this. I know its not polite to say these days, but a lot of women get quite upset after their abortions, even if you didn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
She may very well have been internally conflicted about having abortions, but I would think it to be wildly unlikely considering that she had twelve of them. That's a really high number of abortions for a woman to have had that was really all that broken up about them. Even back then you could get your tubes tied and that's reservable. If she really had such a moral objection to it 100% had options and after the first or second any person with a real problem with it would presumably look into them
ive watched the first 35mins and it is extrodinary,
just incredibly intense and emotional acting from deArmas,
it looks incredible, every shot is like a beautiful photo. I cant watch it in one sitting though, this needs to be savoured like a fine wine
>pro life themes; shows how traumatic and sinister abortion really is >accurately depicts how evil hollywood is >exposes muh perfect liberal president as the fricking rapist he is >surrealist kino on par with some of Lynch’s best work >cinematography on par with the best Kubrick films
yeah I’m thinking based
The whole JFK thing in the film was fricking crazy, and I can see why libs are pissed about it. He has Secret Service guys just grab her and bring her to the White House where JFK was bedridden due to his bad back. He makes her give him a HJ while he is on the phone, then he makes her go down on him while still on the phone, then he throws her on the bed and I assume rapes her. Then later, the Secret Service guys grab her from her house and take her to an operating room where is is forced to abort her JFK rape baby. Of course she was on a ton of drugs by that point, so I guess we are supposed to think it might be all in her head.
Yes, it's very sad. A fun game to make it more interesting might be to try and determine where any act breaks are and take a drink every time you do. It will keep you very invested in the movie and you will be stone sober by the end of it, because this film has no plot.
It's strange. I describe lots of bad movies as just a collection of scenes with no connection but this movie is a literal collection of scenes.
boring, occasional interesting shots, lots of cringe, bad acting, distracting accent. some very regular topless scenes. I guess there was a dick
very awkward film
Was there a dick? In the blowjob scene you can see the top of her hand touching her mouth, not a dick.
For a half second in an earlier scene there was
>what am I in for?
Not an actual biography of Marilyn Monroe. If you're not already familiar with her actual life story, the movie is legitimately going to be hard to follow, because it just assumes you know it, and then just starts making stuff up about actual events they expect you to be familiar with
>what am I in for?
One of the most disappointingly blandest NC-17 films in recent memory which, for some reason, this board is guilty of overhyping the frick out of (probably coomers). You're better off watch BitWC or Love (2015) instead.
A pleb filter. If you enjoy challenging movies that push the envelope then you’ll love it. The problem is that the subject matter of the movie is the type draw in the modern female audience wanting a girl boss movie but it’s really a movie for grown men who enjoy dark films. Think of david lynch mixed with darren Aronofsky making a psychological horror movie about a starlet in the 50’s. It’s completely misunderstood and in a few years will be remembered as a cult classic. I haven’t had this much fun going through letterboxd reviews in a while. Most of them boil down to “haven’t seen it but it’s mysogonistic so 1 Star”. Notice how none of these reviews actually talk about the film but more about the subject which their offended by.
Nah. It definitely tried to be those things, but the execution was shit. I don't hate it on morally outraged Film Twitter basedboy grounds, it just sucked.
I’m just going to have to disagree with you there. The cinematography, score, acting, pacing, were all executed at a high artistic level which is what gives it a pass in my opinion. As a fan of these kind of psychological thrillers it’s one of the best I’ve seen in years.
If it wasn't meant to be a story about an actual person that really lived, then yeah it was definitely visually very well shot and Ana de Armas gives a really powerful performance. But the problem is it's covering a real person with no actual connection to historical accuracy. That and the nudity and sex are just gratuitous. It's three hours long and she's naked for like half of that for absolutely no reason. It's at best ridiculous, and at worst disrespectful to the actual person and her legacy
>But the problem is it's covering a real person with no actual connection to historical accuracy.
I understand that and it’s valid criticism but personally I don’t care about historical accuracy. I’m just looking at the movie as a stand alone piece of art and it succeeds on all fronts in regards to that. Yea she was naked a lot in the movie but I’m almost 30 and can handle some boobas. I can understand how people can see it as gratuitous but personally I don’t have a problem with nudity in film. It’s not for everyone but if you enjoy these kinds of movies it’s a masterpiece. Too bad it’s marketed towards women in their early 20’s since this is not their kind of movie.
>I understand that and it’s valid criticism
Okay, then you get it, because that is what made most people not like this movie because it's about a real person and it blatantly and repeatedly misrepresents her and real events in her life. If you understand that, then you get why the vast majority of audiences and critics thought it despite being visually shot very well it's actual content to be very distasteful and didn't enjoy the film
You’re just repeating what you said the last time. I believe the vast majority of audiences and critics are misunderstanding the point of the movie. I understand the point they’re making but they’re also missing the point of the movie by projecting their own opinions on how the character should have been portrayed. If you’re emotionally intelligent enough to separate art from reality you’ll find the movie stands alone as an incredibly shot psychological thriller. If you want to be offended about something as trivial as a film portrayal of Marilyn Monroe by all means go ahead. But personally I can objectively look at the film the filmmaker intended to make and appreciate it. It’s just too bad modern audiences can’t separate that.
>I understand the point they’re making but they’re also missing the point of the movie by projecting their own opinions on how the character should have been portrayed.
I don't think so because the person being portrayed isn't actually a fictional character. This would have worked much better as a completely separate work of fiction disconnected from any actual people or events (though the gratuitous nudity and sex would still have been a problem for many people I suspect, on the grounds that it serves no real purpose to the story), but the problem is that it IS, and it's severely misrepresenting real people. And not just a little bit here and there with artistic license- the film completely misrepresents the character (I mean that in the sense of her moral composition, not a literary character) of the woman and her life and how she behaved and felt about it.
Youre not adding anything new to this discussion you’re just saying “I don’t think so” and then repeating the same point twice now. Again, if the portrayal of Marilyn Monroe is so offensive to you that you can’t look at the movie objectively then that’s fine. But if you can separate art from reality and appreciate the movie as its own work, regardless of how you may feel about the portrayal, you’ll find an incredible movie. It’s sad modern audiences would rather be offended then to have their perceptions challenged. In this day and age people would rather be offended over things that don’t actually effect them instead of having to have a critical thought.
If it sounds repetitious it's because it's in response to you saying that you understand the criticism, and then proceeding to disregard it. Meaning you don't actually understand the criticism. If you actually did you wouldn't disregard it.
Your entire perspective seems to be one of
>This meal was excellently prepared and the ingridients were all fresh and very well sourced
>Yes, but there was a giant piece of shit sitting in the center of the plate
>...yes I understand that, but I find that if you can look past that you'll see it was an exceptional dish
Lmao- "But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
There’s a difference between understanding and agreeing. I understand the point I just disagree. Your shit in the hamburger metaphor does not work because you’re the one projecting the shit on the burger in the first place. I’m enjoying the hamburger for what it is. You’re telling me I shouldn’t enjoy it because you’re projecting a piece of shit on it based on what you think the burger should be. When in reality it’s just a tasty burger.
>you’re the one projecting the shit on the burger in the first place.
No, because by saying you understand the criticisms of the movie you're acknowledging the shit in the food. You're not saying it doesn't exist and there was no shit, you're saying you're aware it's there, and you think people are dumb for calling the food bad when they could just eat around it
I’m not acknowledging your criticism of the movie as valid I’m saying I understand how you could could come to your conclusion. If you’re a completely close minded person and absolutely can’t accept another interpretation no matter how offensive it may seem then yea I’d be offended too. But I personally don’t care about Marilyn Monroe and neither should you really. She’s been dead for 60 years and you did not know her. Modern audiences have to find something to be offended about when in reality it doesn’t matter. If you look at the movie objectively you’ll see that everything this movie sets out to do it does incredibly well.
Except if you're saying that, then you don't actually acknowledge it to be valid criticism. The movie objectively is about a real person and does actually substantially misrepresent her, and you're saying look past that. What I'm saying is if they had just simply made this about an entirely fictional character they'd have had none of these criticisms
Why is it so hard for you to accept that these things could have happened to marilyn? At least some of them probably did.
I bet you totally 100% know for a fact that Kevin space isn't a rapey gay pedo either.
I think Marilyn's rise to stardom looked a lot more like Blonde than whatever tv movie bullshit you want ld Hollywood to operate like.
Look, I grant you the Hollywood casting couch stuff. That has been well known for decades, so no doubt a babe like Marilyn who wasn't a very good actress early in her career, seems like the type who only got into films after getting fricked by decrepit old israeli studio bosses. But it takes two to tango. She wanted to be a star, just like Harvey's girls wanted to, and they went along with it because in their mind it was worth it. So I don't by the #metoo victim bullshit. If you didn't want to frick & suck gross old fat producers and studio bosses in order to be a rich popular movie star, then go be a waitress or a nurse or whatever and keep your dignity.
LMAO, how can anyone call it misogynistic with a straight face? I'm a man and watching this film literally made me hate all the male characters featured in it.
There was an interview with the director on NPR, he claimed he wrote the screenplay 14 years ago and got rejected because it was too anti-male for the time.
There was also an interview he did with Vanity Fair recently where he explained he hadn't actually seen many of her movies and didn't really like here as an actress
Id believe that. It’s crazy to think we’ve gone so far the other way that it’s now seen as misogynistic.
why do they type like that
How do you marathon just one movie? I'm here to learn.
If you're a zoomer, "watching a movie" is now called "marathoning a series of related tik-toks"
a movie about a woman who wants a baby and a father but never gets either.
That's the really fricked up part about how this movie misrepresents her. In real life Marilyn Monroe actually had TWELVE abortions. She was not a person that had a problem with abortions. It just completely misrepresents the actual person's feelings and views on the issue
those were israelitespawns she was gassing
Oh bullshit, she just had an out of control substance abuse prblem because she was happy with how her life was turning out?
Face facts.
No one is arguing the real woman didn't actually have a severe addiction problem, but it's actually a fact she really did have 12 abortions. That's not a thing a person that hates abortions does. The movie paints her as a woman that was forced into having an abortion against her will and deeply regretted it for the rest of her life, but the reality of the situation is the actual person in real life was trying to hit the high score
After the first 2, the next 10 get a lot easier i guess?
Maybe she felt complex because she was supporting her mother and other friends and family, and knew if she got pregnant the movie roles would stop? Maybe, in her mentally unwell mind she needed to be on screen and loved, and felt like she would be forgotten if she was mothering and not starleting? Maybe she was conflicted but doing what she thought was necessary?
A sane and healthy person does not get 12 abortions, so that kind of undermines your point too.
Just to put things in perspective, Marilyn Monroe died when she was 36 years old. Being amazingly generous here and saying she was just as sexually abused as the movie paints her out to be, if her periods first started when she was 12 and she began getting pregnant then giving her the largest time window conceivably possible, she would have been having an abortion every other year from the day she started being able to conceive until the day she died. This is not the behavior of someone that hates abortions and deeply regrets them
"When selling herself, or with romantic liaisons and long-time lovers, Marilyn, always eager to please, meekly agreed to men’s demands to have sex without contraceptives and got pregnant again and again"
This is from the same source as the claim she had 12 abortions. Does it really sound like she could have absolutely no regrets? Even when she is quoted saying she wants to be a mother more than anything?
You're projecting your own modern sensibilities onto this. I know its not polite to say these days, but a lot of women get quite upset after their abortions, even if you didn't.
She may very well have been internally conflicted about having abortions, but I would think it to be wildly unlikely considering that she had twelve of them. That's a really high number of abortions for a woman to have had that was really all that broken up about them. Even back then you could get your tubes tied and that's reservable. If she really had such a moral objection to it 100% had options and after the first or second any person with a real problem with it would presumably look into them
Can I spank my monkey to it?
Yeah you fricking coomer homosexual
Roasties and do nothing office job females are the reason Western world is losing Geopolitical wars to Russia and China.
ive watched the first 35mins and it is extrodinary,
just incredibly intense and emotional acting from deArmas,
it looks incredible, every shot is like a beautiful photo. I cant watch it in one sitting though, this needs to be savoured like a fine wine
Wine aunts on suicide watch
Wait is the this the blowjob movie? Didn’t know it was gonna be straight to Netflix lmao. I may check it out
I was promised a fellatio scene
was it all marketing?
have they no shame
Singing fetus owning the libs
>pro life themes; shows how traumatic and sinister abortion really is
>accurately depicts how evil hollywood is
>exposes muh perfect liberal president as the fricking rapist he is
>surrealist kino on par with some of Lynch’s best work
>cinematography on par with the best Kubrick films
yeah I’m thinking based
The whole JFK thing in the film was fricking crazy, and I can see why libs are pissed about it. He has Secret Service guys just grab her and bring her to the White House where JFK was bedridden due to his bad back. He makes her give him a HJ while he is on the phone, then he makes her go down on him while still on the phone, then he throws her on the bed and I assume rapes her. Then later, the Secret Service guys grab her from her house and take her to an operating room where is is forced to abort her JFK rape baby. Of course she was on a ton of drugs by that point, so I guess we are supposed to think it might be all in her head.
I just got done watching the first half hour. This film has a very malevolent quality to it
Yes, it's very sad. A fun game to make it more interesting might be to try and determine where any act breaks are and take a drink every time you do. It will keep you very invested in the movie and you will be stone sober by the end of it, because this film has no plot.
Who did the alternative reality starlet biopic better? Blonde or Once Upon a Time in Mexico?