• Phenomephrene@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, there’s a lot of good stuff here. Definitely some so bad it’s good material, some stuff that is just good, and some stuff that is just bad (Wicker Man (2006) has a couple moments to laugh at, but it’s not worth the time investment to even get to those). And more than a couple that I’ve never seen that I’m going to have to queue up at some point.

    I’d completely forgotten about the movie Fear. I hadn’t realized it had reached any kind of cult status. Looking back at it though I do remember that movie being kind of strangely captivating, but more so just very strange, in a disconcerting sort of way.

    Showgirls is actually excellent, though an understandably contentious movie. It’s intentionally uncomfortable, and doesn’t do much to spoon feed you the point it’s trying to make. Not to say that if you don’t like it that you just don’t get it; it may very well just not be to your taste, and that’s completely understandable. It’s far from a straight up bad movie though imo.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Showgirls is a Verhoven movie. As a critic once said “Gina Gershon is the only one who knows what kind of movie she’s in.” Dude likes to mindfuck his audience and his actors. Similarly, Neil Patrick Harris in “Starship Troopers” and Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” are the only ones who really grasp their roles in these Verhoven movies. And honestly I think that’s on purpose.

      The movie also just feels like everyone involved is high on free all you can snort cocaine.

      • Phenomephrene@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yep, Verhoven is brilliant. He can be no less viscerally discomforting than Cronenberg or Solondz, but most of the time he’s much more subtle about how he injects that vibe. I enjoy it immensely.