this film would have been MUCH better.
-
PrometheusTree64 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 01:54 PM)
The OP was talking about Nancy Allen, and I, too, didn't think she was too good in this (I keep thinking of Goldie Hawn not because I'm a Goldie fan, but I just don't like Allen's performance).
Angie, on the other hand, is just fine.
I do think this films suffers from Nancy Allen's acting, a sometimes inappropriate music score, and that late-'70s fetishy flavor (which can be both good and bad).
The result is a film that feels like a soft-core satire.
Non-sequiturs are delicious. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 29, 2013 10:15 AM)
Even in a nightmare it would be hard to believe that big Dr. Elliott could fit into the petite nurse's formfitting uniform and small shoes.
In a nightmare or a dream, anything can happen. Think of the dreams you once had, which had made-up places, people, and scenarios. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 29, 2013 12:29 PM)
It's not tacked on at all. The film opens with a dream, so fittingly it ends with one.
Light-hearted scenes serve to relax you before another scary scene.
You assume the nurse is smaller than the doctor. There are big women too. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 29, 2013 02:00 PM)
This is a woman who is having some emotional crises for which she needs psychiatric help, so her having nightmares at the beginning is not tacked on at all, but necessary.
There seems to be a lot of things in the film you don't like: the opening dream, the closing dream, the scenes between the call girl and the boy, and even the doctor's shoe size! Is there anything you DO like? -
PrometheusTree64 — 12 years ago(December 29, 2013 07:49 PM)
My
problems with the movie are (and have always been) Nancy Allen, the score which is sometimes effective but sometimes inappropriate, the late-'70s fetish-y softcore flavor, some dumbish dialogue ("I can tell by the size of that."), Angie's dubbed screams provided by someone else's voice, and the resultant cartoon-y quality all of the above mars the picture with.
Otherwise, I'm fine with it.
Non-sequiturs are delicious. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 10:07 AM)
My problems with the movie are (and have always been) Nancy Allen
I said in my earlier post that perhaps the director intentionally cast an inexperienced actress so that her behavior would appear forced and artificial, which is fitting for those scenes where she has to lie and pretend.
the late-'70s fetish-y softcore flavor
Angie Dickinson's character is a sexually-unfulfilled woman. The film depicts her thoughts and actions, which often revolve around sex. The opening dream depicts her sexual frustration. The museum scene depicts her sexual yearning, and so forth. These highly cinematic sequences are no way close to resembling a "softcore" film.
Angie's dubbed screams provided by someone else's voice
That's a typical filmmaking technique: to create a disembodied voice that befits a dream sequence.
The two of you, like so many average filmgoers, has a fundamental lack of cineliteracy that makes you unable to appreciate the artistic qualities of a great film. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 01:03 PM)
And will you kindly acquire some basic film knowledge? Here is a book I suggest : "Understanding Movies" by Louis Giannetti,
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Movies-Edition-Louis-Giannetti/dp/ 0130408131
. This would be the best penny you would ever spend. It is written for general readers (though some schools use it as a textbook), and it breaks down the basic elements of film art and helps you form sound opinions about films. By calling "Dressed to Kill" a "softcore" film, by having an opinion that is so completely off-based, you showed that you are FAR from being informed regarding the aesthetics of film. I would recommend this book to practically anyone who watches a lot of movies. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 02:59 PM)
You mean with your razor-sharp English skills you failed to observe that the other poster had JUST described the film with "the late-'70s fetish-y softcore flavor"? Shocking.
Doctor, it's abundantly clear that I'm dealing with a simpleton. So stop the charade and go get some much needed knowledge. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 05:14 PM)
Can you get any more hilarious? "Just" means "recently"; look it up. Less than a day ago is "recent", to point out the obvious. With every post you show to the world what a fool you are, don't you?. Just curious: what is your age and what is your IQ? My guess is your age IS your IQ and you probably don't even know what that means, Lol.
-
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 08:27 PM)
Hahahaha We're not in an English forum, lady. This is a FILM forum. Even if I had English skills of a 2-year-old, but if you lost an argument to me about a film, you would still be IN THE WRONG. And any attempt to weasel your way out of that fact would be futile. So why don't you stop causing any further embarrassment to yourself already by admitting your error. So let you ask you again, you were wrong in saying "Nobody called this film 'softcore'", now weren't you? Come on, you can do it!
Lady, let me teach you a NEW ENGLISH PHRASE today. It's "raging insecurity", which is what you obviously have. I corrected you on SUCH a minor mistake of yours, and instead of admitting it like an adult, you went into this ridiculous song and dance and kept trying to correct my language. Hahahaha If you can't win an argument, then don't compound the situation by acting childishly in front of the very person who SCHOOLED you thoroughly in front of the whole world to see. -
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(December 31, 2013 09:57 AM)
No, YOU missed the point. There is NO SOFTCORE ELEMENT in the film, PERIOD. It's safe to say you are NOT INFORMED enough to judge what is "softcore" and what is not. You are not informed enough to judge what is "boring", "sluggish", "too long", "lethargic", etc. and what is not. Because if you were, you would actually engage in a meaningful debate with me instead of doing all that song and dance routine the way you did before, wouldn't you?
I would think most people would know what "softcore" means, but apparently you don't. A gratuitous sex scene that serves only to TITILLATE the viewer with LENGTHY, MEANINGLESS shots that serve no purpose other than to depict sexual activities, complete with CRUDE camerawork, acting, and standard elevator music: THAT'S softcore, or to be precise, softcore PORNOGRAPHY.
The opening shower/dream scene is neither crude nor pornographic. and it actually has MEANING. AND THE MUSIC DEPICTS HER MIND STATE: from initially romantic feelings to terror later. The scene shows her being attacked when she is at her most vulnerable while her husband stands IDLY BY. It shows her AFFECTION towards her husband, who DOESN'T RECIPROCATE IT. This dream sequence is cut right to the moment when she is having unsatisfying sex with her husband. Thus, her nightmare is an APT METAPHOR for her strained relationship with her husband. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY SOFTCORE PORN FILM with such rich meaning in just one short scene?? Note that the TV version cuts out the part of her having sex with her husband, BUTCHERING THE WHOLE POINT of the scene. And here you are, telling us how much better the TV version actually is, lol.
As I said, go get some education on these EXTREMELY RUDIMENTARY topics on film art. Or keep on having an attitude and not learn a thing.