Anonymous wrote:I never thought the movie was that funny.

Yeah, I thought it was homophobic when it first came out. But other older gays around me loved it, so, you know, to each their own.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget Christine Baranski’s performance.

“I’m not maternal” (pops open a bottle of champagne between her thighs).

She was so hot in this, amazing legs. When I watched this movie as a teenager in the 90s, I thought she oozed sex appeal.

Let’s not forget Christine Baranski’s performance.

“I’m not maternal” (pops open a bottle of champagne between her thighs).

he's being his own spoiled a--hole college self. Come on. If it weren't about this it would be about his loans or his internships or embarrassment about his home and his straight parents.

come on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different topic, but let us not forget Agador Spartacus!

She works hard for the money!

The Pirin tablets!

Madonna Madonna, FOSSE FOSSE FOSSE FOSSE, Martha Graham! Martha Graham!

(I love this film)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie is just an updated (for that era) U.S. version of La Cage Aux Folles which was released/set in 1978.

I think that's what's happening here.

Stuff was one thing in 1978 and another 20 years later, and in 2025 it seems antiquated in terms of like almost all the jokes and tropes and clichés so as to almost be offensive.

Imagine remaking "Some Like it Hot" today, TV shows like Three's Company or Bosom Buddies.

You couldn't do it. It wouldn't have the same humor for today's audiences, even close.

Movies like First Wives Club got a little bit closer, then there was Home for the Holidays, and then The Family Stone with just actual, real families that started reflecting the silent but inevitable progress towards ... progress.

And, as the famous character Bill Heslop in Muriel's Wedding said, "You Can't Stop Progress"

You don't have to imagine. The new stage version is playing at the National Theatre now.

I had no idea, perhaps I was responding in a mental vacuum.

But could you remake Rent today?

I have an adult child who is HIV+ ... today you don't have to die, it's no longer a remake of La Traviata where anyone is doomed to death.

Well, until this administration outlaws HIV meds like they have things like vaccines or other medical care.

Fortunately my kid lives in a different country where they actually have a true dictatorship ... and they still get HIV meds for a lower cost than it would be here.

Uninsured here while home a 3 month supply was 12K. Over there it's 4K for 3 months. And this is one of countries where I get told daily that they throw people like my child off buildings or behead them.

And I can't even correct people because I would have to say how I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie is just an updated (for that era) U.S. version of La Cage Aux Folles which was released/set in 1978.

I think that's what's happening here.

Stuff was one thing in 1978 and another 20 years later, and in 2025 it seems antiquated in terms of like almost all the jokes and tropes and clichés so as to almost be offensive.

Imagine remaking "Some Like it Hot" today, TV shows like Three's Company or Bosom Buddies.

You couldn't do it. It wouldn't have the same humor for today's audiences, even close.

Movies like First Wives Club got a little bit closer, then there was Home for the Holidays, and then The Family Stone with just actual, real families that started reflecting the silent but inevitable progress towards ... progress.

And, as the famous character Bill Heslop in Muriel's Wedding said, "You Can't Stop Progress"

Ummmm

Ummmm White chicks is basically a shot by shot remake of some like it hot.

White Chicks is more than 20 years old.