Escape to the Movies: No Strings Attached

Ghengis John

New member
Dec 16, 2007
2,209
0
0
"Can a Romance free sexual relationship work without jealousy, feelings blah blah blah

YES!"

Well to be fair bob, it works for some people and then again for others it doesn't.

I had a friend who tells me "So today I'm meeting a new friend, with benefits" I'm like. "I don't know how you can do that man". A year later she's his fiance.

As for me, it's not a morality thing. I'm just too possessive. Gotta be honest with myself. I'd get the ugly feelings.

That said, I hate these movies for all the reasons you pointed out. Perfect people, upscale world. That's not real love. Best love story ever filmed, Rocky 1. Two messed up poor people can fall in love? I hear rumors that it does happen.
 

lokiduck

New member
Jun 5, 2010
359
0
0
Funny considering I just saw The King's Speech Yesterday. I actually want to know why you consider it the most overrated film of last year?
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Movie execs for the mainstream will aways lag behind.

The current "edgy" thing now is Polyamory as far as I'm aware. At least almost every bisexual is wanting to try a committed "foursome" relationship, or having one boyfriend and one girlfriend at least once.
 

EdwardOrchard

New member
Jan 12, 2011
232
0
0
MovieBob, I've always enjoyed your reviews, but after seeing you give a nod to both Evolution and Peanut Butter and Banana, well, your smack is so fresh, Dawg.
 

Frankfurter4444

New member
Aug 11, 2009
168
0
0
I'm actually interested in how well Ludacris does in this movie. In most of his stuff I've seen (which is by no means most of his stuff) he actually looks like he can act, I'm curious how he'd do in this.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Canid117 said:
Ashoten said:
So is the new X-men movie gonna be a reboot or will it take place after 3, or maybe God forbid a prequel?
Reboot

It takes place in the 60s now and from publicity shots it looks like magneto at least starts out as a good guy.
They're calling it a "prequel" for now, i.e. this is supposed to be the "origin" of the Magneto and Professor X seen in the previous films - hence why the "First Class" of X-Men are all "second-string" characters from the books instead of more well-known ones like Cyclops or Storm, who wouldn't have been born yet. So far there only seems to be one continuity problem: Beast, seen at the rear of the image, is here already blue and furry - but he was "normal" in a cameo in the first film supposedly taking place 30 years later.

Fans of the films who don't necessarily know the original material may wish to note that the "buff"-ish guy at the rear of the right lineup is Cyclops's brother, Havok, and that the blue girl is indeed a younger Mystique. The creepy red-looking guy up the back right is Azazel, whose role in this is unknown but in the comics is an OLD (as in Old Testament old) super-mutant - who may or may not "actually" be a literal DEMON - and the father of Mystique's son, Nightcrawler.

The brunette woman in gray is Moira McTaggart, the lady doctor Xavier was teleconferencing with in the third film. January Jones (the blonde in the lingerie everyone pretty-much notice first in the pic) is Emma Frost, aka The White Queen - that was supposedly HER as the girl who turned into diamonds in "Origins: Wolverine," but this film and the rest of the series is supposed to be pretending that that one didn't happen.
 

Ritter315

New member
Jan 10, 2010
112
0
0
Again, Bob, you seem to be REALLY pouring on the superiority complex here. First of all, am I'm not any better in the love department as anyone else here, but MOST people have NOT experienced that sort of relationship on these forums, I know I havent. But do you know who we call those people who have sex care-free without thinking about the conquences or wheiter or not they actually care about the person they have sex with? We call those guys macho-douchebags, and sluts. Personally I am of the understanding that in order to have sex there must be some form of feelings going on, and if there isnt than its a superfical and almost patheically childish relationship, like two little kids finally discovering what playing doctor is. If the movie was actually about real life, either the man would feel like a piece of meat, or the women would be empty and alone (Its just our natures) because of the lack of geninue feelings. Also "Moral-watchdog douchebag"? Ok I agree that some people are way too hard about morality, especially when it comes to films, until you remember that media, including film, influences culture regardless of the subject matter or purposed meaning. I wouldnt mind more people making sure that SOME values stay where they are, and I think that sex is one of them. I mean, would I LOVE to have sex, whenever and with whoever I want to? YES! Of course, thats our nature. HOWEVER, if I was given the opprotunity to do that, I would probably decline, because it would be empty and meaningless and most people feel this way. So yeah, I think you came down a little too hard on that in this review.
 

AvsJoe

New member
May 28, 2009
9,055
0
0
I may see the movie, I may not.

What was with the editing? The brief blip of the Spyglass Entertainment logo or the sex-scene blip at the end?
 

MeSomeGuy

New member
Aug 10, 2009
23
0
0
Good review Bob, as usual.

As for the whole "Can non-romantic "FWB" sex work... yes, it's 2011." Try it... it doesn't matter if the year is 2069, thats a impossibly hard relationship to control. Ironically only a made up Hollywood logic can make it work... for longer than a couple weeks.
Just my personal exp lol
 
Sep 17, 2009
2,851
0
0
Aight Bob first off get off the King's Speech's back, blah blah blah yes it was Oscar bait, but that is the only reason you disliked it. It was a great film. Oscar bait is Oscar bait for a reason.

Also the new X-men kinda look terrible. I like the cast though.

OT: Good review, I'm glad Portman didn't pull a Norbit.
 

Tomo Stryker

New member
Aug 20, 2010
626
0
0
If he could lay off politics it would be fun to watch, but I don't come to The Escapist to discuss politics or religion. Either way, you still have my views.
 

matt87_50

New member
Apr 3, 2009
435
0
0
I took one look at that poster and went "that looks like the most awful, generic, horrible cash grab of a movie"

you say Hollywood is good at selling movies. I say they SUCK at selling RomCom.


the switch of having Portman as the quirky one and Kutcher as the strait one (when you would obviously expect the opposite), DOES sound like an interesting twist.
 

Mattteus

New member
May 1, 2009
204
0
0
Anyone else amused by the fact that Mila Kunis, who plays the 'rival'/'usurper' in Black Swan is filming a movie called Friends with Benefits?
 

Orange Monkey

New member
Mar 16, 2009
604
0
0
Friends with benefits works pretty damn well actually. Before I met my partner I was FWB with this guy I'd known for a few years, and when I did meet my partner we broke if off very civilly, I knew he had another guy so it wasn't like either of us was going to go without sex, it's a pretty simple relationship if you can keep emotionally detached.
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
It might be good but I'm not going to see it; me and rom-coms don't get a long no matter how "edgy" they think they are.
 

370999

New member
May 17, 2010
1,107
0
0
I might see it. I am a bit of a sap when it comes to romance. However I'm not part of the whole Natalie Portman is a sex goddess group, the woman has no butt! And that's enlightment for you folks!

Captain American and the X-men look silly, I'm sorry but I never thought directly transcribing the costumes of superheros into films was a good idea.

As for the FWB aspect, I don't know. I haven't meet someone who it has worked out well and I couldn't do it myself but that's only personnal experience.
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
Evolution was AWESOME!

Anyway, good review and nice to see your thoughts on Ashton.