Woo! New Snob episode!
Bah, not processed yet!
Yeah, not processed. Damn!
What, not processed yet? Boo! Zero stars!
How long does it normally take an episode to be processed?
Wow! Totally didn't expect to see a new episode so soon! You're awesome, Brad. ;*
Is it really not processed yet? It is in internet explorer.
Where is he going?
"To someone saner, like Vivien Leigh."
Best quote ever.
That and the Bing Crosby joke really had me cracking up!
Reading the episode description made me panic for a minute thinking "my god is it Mothers Day again so soon!" In actual fact it turns out you guys in the US celebrate it way later than us, ours was March 30th and I gave my mum a big hug and Brian Lewis calendar signed by Danny Devito. I didn't know we celebrated it on different dates until now. What a crazy, fucked up world we live in.
Working for me in FF on linux.
Excellent work Brad. Despite the rep of Mommie Dearest, Faye Dunaway plays one of those roles that can almost get confused with the person that the actor is playing. She's equal to George C. Scott as Patton.
Indeed! It's almost unsettling how much Faye Dunaway looks like Joan Crawford in this movie!
ooohhh child abuse. that's my kinda show lol.
Another great review.
But you didn't put the 5 minute skit ahead of the review like usual.
Oh my god. I was literally just thinking today that you should review Mommie Dearest. And here it is. This makes me so happy
I am now going to be watching this on Netflix, thanks Snob. Also I was wondering if you were going to make a gloria swanson comparison.
Me: "Oh, yeah, Wednesday. What's the new Cinema Snob episode?"
thecinemasnob.com: "Mommy Dearest"
Me: "Oh, shit."
I never watched the movie, but child abuse is NEVER funny. Nor is it ever fun to make fun of. This review was one of the hardest I've ever had to watch from this show.
And I've seen "Lovelace", "What's Love Got To Do With It?", and five Tyler Perry movies with domestic abuse in them.
And I agree, the acting in this movie is really good. Faye Dunaway is actually pretty disturbing to watch, and one of the scariest performances I've seen since I saw Michael Fassbender in "12 Years a Slave" in January.
So, yeah. The Razzies can go fuck themselves for hating what's popular. Because "Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Part II" was so much worse that "That's My Boy".
Well said SamJ! I'm a big fan of classic movies (1930s - 1970s), and Joan Crawford is among my favorite actresses of the old Hollywood era. She was a damn good actress, but knowing about Mommie Dearest (both the book and movie), sends chills up my spine when thinking of the kind of person she was behind the camera.
I was very surprised to see a Snob episode of this movie, but Brad you did a fine job! You made jokes at the right moments, you knew when to let the film be serious and didn't make fun of the child abuse and psychological anguish Joan went through when dealing with Hollywood's studio execs dismissing her credibility as an actress, just because she was getting older (something that was rampant back in those days). I'm glad to see the film receiving the accolades it deserves, that the Razzies were too dense to acknowledge. Well done!
While I definitely don't condone child abuse, part of me has to wonder, and feel sorry for Joan Crawford. Not only in the movie, but in real life. Apparently her father walked out on her, her mother, and her older brother a few months before Joan was born, and her mother married three times after being separated from Joan's father. Joan's mother's first husband, a opera house owner named Henry Cassin, was a big influence on Joan's introduction to the stage and acting, but the marriage between him and Joan's mother ended abruptly when it was discovered that Cassin was molesting a then eleven-year-old Joan Crawford, and he was also accused of embezzling from the Crawford family. Before that, Cassin enrolled Joan as a student at St. Agnes' Academy in Kansas City, where she remained after her mother and Cassin's separation. However, since her mother couldn't afford the school's tuition, Joan started working as a maid so she could continue her tutelage there. Since she had to pay her own way at the academy, many of her peers ostracized her for being poor, and she was beaten by the headmaster's wife if she (Joan) didn't do a good job cleaning.
Fast-forward to early in her acting career, Joan had to do a lot of her own self-promotion, because not only was she not getting a lot of good parts in movies (she was barely getting any work at the time because no one was taking her seriously as an actress), but she was also barely getting paid for the work she *was* doing. Hell, MGM screenwriter Frederica Sagor Maas once said, "No one decided to make Joan Crawford a star. Joan Crawford became a star because Joan Crawford decided to become a star." Pete Smith, who was the MGM publicity head at the time, even convinced Louis B. Mayer (head of MGM Studios) to have Joan adopt the moniker 'Joan Crawford', because they felt her birth name, Lucille LeSueur, "sounded too fake". Smith felt it sounded too much like "Le Sewer". Joan initially wanted her name to be pronounced 'Jo-Anne', but it never came to be (similar to how Bette Davis wanted her name to be pronounced 'Bet' [think Bette Midler], but everyone pronounced it 'Betty') and she absolutely hated the last name "Crawford', because to Joan, it sounded to similar to 'Crawfish'.
By the time she was in her mid 30s (34 - 36) and well into her acting career, studio executives were already restricting what roles for movies they'd send to Joan, because they felt she was "too old" to still play the femme fatal, or even the star in their movies. Although back then, it was quite common for Hollywood execs to cut short the careers of well-known actresses because they felt the actresses weren't young enough, weren't pretty enough, or weren't skinny enough to star in a movie (they did the same thing to Judy Garland). By the time 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?' came along, studio execs only sent it to her because they felt Joan was old enough and looked haggard enough to play the role of Blanche Hudson.
Even after the death of her fourth husband, Pepsi-Cola Co. CEO Al Steele, when she filled in on the board of directors for him, his colleagues decided to force her into retirement after concluding they no longer had any need for her services.
Considering all the abuse and discrimination she had to put up with her whole life, it's no surprise that she was not only an alcoholic, but clearly had anger issues, and was mentally unstable to the point that she abused her children, or at least the two eldest. It's even said, of the five children she adopted, Cindy and Cathy, Joan's two youngest daughters were given $77,500 each from her $2,000,000 estate. She explicitly disinherited the two eldest, Christina and Christopher (seen in the movie). Had mental illness been taken seriously back then, and not considered even more of a taboo than it is now, I believe Joan may have lived a happy life, and not have been so cruel to Christina and Christopher. It's sad that this isn't the case.
((Sorry for my long post. Just doing some analyzing.))
Damn it!! Sorry everyone for re-posting the same comment four times! The damn comment section is glitching out again and giving me the message that there was an error in posting my message the first time, and not even alerting me that I was posting the same thing twice!
I wish there was a way for me to delete those comments! Can anyone get Brad to do it? :(
Yeah that glitch keeps happening with me too. It's like "There was an error in posting your comment" so I'm like "Oh ok, i'll try again." It doesn't work, ever. So I reload the page and BEHOLD! It's been posted 4 times.
As for the review, I can't understand how this movie got a Razzie, it looks so beautiful. And dammit I love watching little girls get abused (as long as it's fictional of course).
Besides, how am I supposed to car if this girl gets abused if she grows up to be such a beautiful little bitch? Fuck if she's going to end up being that hot she deserves to have some abuse, no guy is ever going to treat her badly so I'm perfectly fine with her mom doing the job.
This movie reminds me of The Shining, only it has a tone prone towards realism more than the supernatural. Honestly this film looks like a work of genius.
All of you "Child Abuse" assholes need to shut up and enjoy someone else's pain and misery for once in your lives. It's a good way to forget your own misery by watching a fictional character get hurt. Hell that's why I kill so many female zombies in Dead Island Riptide in such disgusting ways.
You sound like Bizarro-Fake Josh Hadley.
Fantastic video. I'd never seen this movie, but I'd always heard it was ridiculous. However, watching this, I don't see how it got that reputation at all. This movie really seems quite horrifying to me. I'll definitely have to check it out and judge for myself some day.
Thanks Brad. I never knew much about this film other than the wire hanger scene, and your review revealed it for the good movie that it is. This is why I like your reviews: you don't jump on the bandwagon, if a movie's good, you stand by it.
Dammit Brad, now you have to do 'Trog'.
How fitting. I just watched this movie on TCM the other day with my kids.
Now kids, next time you think I'm being unfair just remember I could be acting like this.
Now I need to see the movie for myself. I believe it should be viewed and analysed for years to come. It deserves a Blu-Ray release with great PQ/AQ plus commentaries and featurettes by the people who at least understood the movie. Plus, I agree that Faye Dunaway did an excellent recreation of Crawford that like the film deserves more credit!
Best Snob episode so far this year. "By now the meat's probably only held together by day-fly eggs" nearly made me snort my Captain and coke out my nose. Big props on razzing the Razzies.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Razzies either.
And people think this is a bad movie? Probably the same crowd that made the Worst movies ever made wikipedia page listing nothing but MST3K episodes.
Also the same people who think the "worst songs ever" are whatever novelty one-hit wonders they can think of as standing out.
Yeah, for every corny synthpop sonng from the '80s, there's a 'My Pal Foot Foot.'
But then I'd have to argue that for every corny synth-pop song from the '80s AND every 'My Pal Foot Foot' there's the majority of songs that've charted in the last 4 years. At least The Shaggs sounded sincere and unique. Personally I'd rather hear terribly off-key singing and ramshackle, sub-amateur musicianship than soulless, commercial, auto-tuned non-music.
Thank you! Maybe it's because I also grew up with a mother that had mental issues like this, but I always found this movie more disturbing than funny.
I don't mean to pry, Mike, but I always figured Dunaway's performance of Crawford in this flick was a pretty accurate representation of Narcissistic personality disorder. Do you see similarities? Please, don't feel the need to respond if the subject is too personal to you.
Not so much Narcissistic Personality Disorder, more just the overall behavior in the film by Joan Crawford. Stuff like reacting violently to small problems, guilting the kids into feeling sorry for her, believing she has done so much for her kids without thinking about the negative aspects of what she's done, things like that. While most kids don't grow up in rich Hollywood neighborhoods, the scenes of abuse can hit pretty close to home. While there are some cheesy moments in the film, I don't think Mommie Dearest is a movie that deserves to be called terrible, or even campy.
Brad, it's not Rule 34, it's Rule 63 (which states that for every fictional character, there exists an opposite-gender counterpart.) Internet!
Eh this movie was shit. Sorry Cinemasnob, you may like it but that sure as Hell doesn't make it a good movie. Glad you enjoy it though.
Saw this movie on cable when I was a kid and it thought it was seriously fucked up from the get go. That said there were 2-3 scenes that were so insane that it was impossible to take seriously if you never read the book. Dick and Liz suffered from the same problems, for some reason playing over the top characters over the top just doesn't play well when played straight and not for laughs.
Faye Dunaway was probably the last major movie star to use the old 30s and 40s pre "method" style of acting which was way more often than not, over the top. This was the one time it was MORE than necessary based on the source material yet it was the one time she got burned for it. She won an Oscar for the black comedy Network but a Razzie for Mommie Dearest and I think it's because over the top tends to play better when used in satire or comedy.
I was kinda wondering what Brad actually thinks of this movie out of his cinema snob personality?
Clue: When the Snob takes off his glasses, it's Brad talking.
Now the only question is whether he was being hyperbolic or not. Not that I'm dissing the movie, I can clearly see why that opinion (that her performance is the best) is completely legitimate now.
Hey Brad, do you still watch AMC's Mad Men? and if you do how are you liking the final season? Oh, and great episode.
I'll be honest, while the Razzie community as a whole suffers from the conditions you mentioned, the regulars on the forums are sages among film buffs. Each one is at least 10 years more knowledgeable in film than his or her own age, and it's a shame they didn't form an academy yet so abominations like Miss March and Strange Wilderness got the flak they deserved then. (Note: some of these higher ups are finally catching on to the latter)
Anyways, looking at the Razzies from hat year, it was apparently only the second ceremony when it was just John Wilson and his Oscar potluck party, and the only film I recognize that could've taken this one's place is............. ENDLESS LOVE!? Wait, how does THAT get a full entry in the official Razzie guide as a "comedy" and yet that one just gets listed in the index of nominations at the end? This requires advanced research clearly.
Well that was fucking grim.
I wonder if....roughly thirty years from now, people will look back and say, "After Earth was a far better film that deserved more respect than it got.". I kinda doubt it. But, who knows?
"After Earth" didn't even earn a Razzie.
Did some quick searching. 2 of the people to joke about the "wire hangers" scene are Brad (in his Pieces review) and Doug (in his Drop Dead Fred review)
I think the movie was disparaged because it came off as a hit piece to a lot of old Hollywood.
Pretty much. I remember an SCTV sketch where Bob Hope (as played by Dave Thomas) talked about how he hoped when he died, no one wrote a scathing, tell-all biography about him like what happened to Joan Crawford or Bing Crosby.
"I bet they really massacre me with a film... just for that I'm never gonna die."
Thomas did one of the most note-perfect Bob Hope imitations I've ever seen. The episode where he and Moranis play Hope and Woody Allen trying to make a movie together with Flaherty as the ghost of Crosby giving advice is one of my all time favorite SCTV bits.
That honestly explains how this would have gotten to the Razzies, considering John Wilson is an idol of large chunk of classic cinema (especially Billy Wilder, with his favorite film being Sunset Boulevard) excluding Ben Hur and anything by Cecil B. DeMille.
Holy shit, this was awesome!
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that John Waters' commentary for this movie is great. He genuinely loves the movie and doesn't write it off as camp, but as a brilliant bit of cinema unfairly maligned.
Spot on. Saw this movie when I was a kid and I was terrified by it. It's still a terrifying movie. I have to agree, this whole Razzie bullshit is simply just that: bullshit; and makes me pine for the sensibilities of Armond White, which I will probably never say again in my entire life.
Good review Brad. I have heard about this movie but I think from what I have seen of it Razzies got it wrong. Faye Dunaway did her best with an over the top role, she is always in character. I would love you ooc to talk about the razzies as I personally think they have lost their way instead of giving films that need a good kicking the awards they will give it to a film withj a reputation, sometimes they are spot on like when they gave the worst everything to jack and jill that film was awful and deserves it's place in the pantheon of worst movies ever. However the fact it gave Showgirls worst film of th decade shows how much they don't know about movies, yes Showgirls is campy fun classic that goes dark in the end but if that makes a bad film then I can name you many worse films that came out in the 90s.
vote without actually seeing them? the razzies are clearly made up of Josh Hadleys.
this is the weirdest thing though, you reviewed this the day after netflix recommended it to me. which i actually put in my queue.
i was after doing research that it was a campy comedy. but this seems rather chilling, and terrifying.
honestly, i've always wondered if the Oscars actually watch the movies too...
I had never heard about this movie before, nor did I know anything about Joan Crawford. This film looks disturbing and uncomfortable viewing, certainly not a comedy or comedic performance.
That would be "Death Becomes Her"...
This movie reminded me disturbingly of my own upbringing - in more ways than one. This was, overall, very uncomfortable to watch - and I agree with the Snob's/your(?) opinion in saying that Faye Dunaway's performance was dead-on : something about it chilled me to the bone.
That's about the most comedy I've seen since French "sex comedies"... but it does sound like a good movie. I'd like to give it a try, but I'm not sure I could stomach it without commentary.
This review made me pine in more occasions than one for a good old slasher film, but I wanted to thank you for it. It would've been easy for you to make fun of the movie for all of its alleged camp traits - I'm glad you chose not to. Thank you for reacting so strongly to depictions of abuse, all the while keeping enough distance and irony to make this commentary genuinely enjoyable. I think this review helped me realize, in a way, that facing up to this and being able to laugh about it was important, too.
If this comment is tl;dr, or too personal in tone, I apologize. This movie really is something
Blip has been having issues with processing lately. It's weird. It was another great episode my friend.
I've seen Network and I was blown away by Faye Dunaway's performance in that, so I asked my Dad what happened to her career. She was beautiful, talented, etc. And he said she just kinda faded away.
Now it sounds like she just...got screwed over by assholes for giving a damn good performance of a difficult woman, a woman who Dunaway's coworkers and bosses probably knew. What a waste.
I do wish you'd discussed the controversy over the book and some of its allegations. It's pretty interesting, since not all of Crawford's friends rushed to call Tina Crawford a liar. In fact, a few of them said she was right.
This is my mom's favorite movie....... I wish to Christ I was joking.
Was it the Snob, or you, Brad, talking during all this episode ?
No, that was Craig talking.
Actually, whenever the glasses come off, it's Brad. And since his out-of-character moment was basically to emphasize what the Smob was saying, it's basically Brad praising the movie.
And in my opinion, not entirely undeservedly.
Stop getting better and better.
It kinda frightens me.
Plus this looks like a really good and frightenly disturbing movie.
I remember this played all the time on the Lifetime network, or something along those lines. And yeah I never friggin' laughed when watching it, I was terrified. I can understand that yes her performance, at times, can get kind of silly. But if that's what the character was like in real life, then I guess Joan Crawford was kind of a silly person.
And yeah I miss Faye Dunaway, she was one of the greatest actresses ever and she gets saddled with a bad rap, which she doesn't deserve in the first place. Seriously I think she should get a bad rap more for an underwhelming performance as opposed to an over the top one. Really the only complains I have about the film, come more from the technical and directorial aspect more than anything, since the film was really wonky in those areas as opposed to the acting areas, which was the best part.
Also here's a link to Trailers From Hell; another really good an quick analysis of the film as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_tdE-YiEM
god damn! that was a good episode. Bravo!
knew i wasn't the only person who found this movie less a campy romp than the kind of film von trier tries to make...
Are...do all the restaurant scenes in this movie take place in the restaurant from Scarface? In that case, I'm totally going to pretend Joan Crawford is in the background every time I watch Scarface...and just totally unimpressed by Tony and Elvira's screaming bitch fight.
Great review, Brad, really funny :)
I love Brad's righteous indignation at the treatment this movie has received. I've never heard of/seen this movie before and had only seen the spoofing in passing.
Might give this a go - cheers snob!
I'm always down for some Razzie-bashing. The fact that some people actually treat them as genuine authorities on cinema is a travesty, as is the fact that they are often depicted as counter-culture against Hollywood blockbusters (which I don't necessarily have anything against as long as they are, well, good) when they are just one more organization keeping the spotlight on the already famous big budget films.
Sure Razzies, of course Twilight is the worst thing in every way all the time, there are absolutely no movies worse than those. See? That's how bad the Razzies are! THEY MAKE ME DEFEND TWILIGHT.
Stop for a moment and realize that Twilight didn't win a single Razzie until Eclipse, which got one for Worst Supporting Actor, didn't win Worst Picture until Breaking Dawn Part 2, and the first movie didn't even get nominated for any.
This made my day !
This movie is looking good. It's about a creepy mother and the acress plays it creepy as Hell, that's for sure.
I have a copy of the Official Razzie Movie guide and even they don't give a good reason why it's bad in their write up. In short their review goes "Ha, Faye Dunaway's makeup looks like Tim Curry and look how over the top the acting is!! Isn't the horrible!!" Honestly, I feel like it was on of those "grasping for straws" reviews if I've ever read one.
Christina waited till her mother was dead, so there was no possibility of a rebuttal by Joan. I think she wrote it for profit. Growing up the adopted daughter of a star like Joan Crawford was a amazing gift. I doubt most of the film really happened.
Except for the credible witnesses who saw it happen.
And what "credible witnesses" were these? It's amazing how many roaches crawl out of the woodwork after somebody famous has died. Are these witnesses any more credible than the ones who deny it?
Going only on human nature, if it were true it should have been released while she was around to rebut and would have been given away and not sold.
Truth should not have a price tag, cash grabs on the other hand....
I'm personally embarrassed for anybody that believes any of the book was true.
Growing up the adopted daughter of anyone who's abusive despite how rich or famous they are isn't a "gift" I'd wish upon anyone. Just writing off the allegations as a cheap cash grab is pretty careless. As Miles pointed out there are credible witnesses to the abuse and chances are if Joan Crawford was being cruel to the kids in front of others she was probably worse when no one else was around.
I'm aware that their are con artists out there who will exploit celebrities with false allegations of abuse and that is obviously very, very wrong but I also think that all too often such allegations are just written off as cash-ins or covered up. Here in the UK it's slowly surfacing that people like Jimmy Saville were serial sex offenders and got away with it for decades because of that kind of attitude. He lived in my town and it's starting to seem like some of his buddies, favoured town business men, were also into some pretty terrible stuff. It's like some sick fucking paedophile network that was seemingly covered up by local council and police because of who the people involved were. That disgusts and angers me beyond words. No allegations of abuse should ever be taken lightly or shrugged off without proper objective consideration and that's coming from someone who was once falsely accused of punching a retarded kid.
Adding to what Miles and David stated, Christina actually began writing the book while Joan was still alive (although it was believed it was when Joan first became sick, I think it stated somewhere that she might have gotten pancreatic cancer because of her alcoholism), and Joan even knew about it. It's speculated that the reason Joan disowned (or didn't leave anything to Christina and her brother Christopher) was because of the book.
"No wire hangers!"
A good review but even watching this review was painful. Some of the events in it hit way too close to home for me to ever want to watch the full thing.
An absolutely stellar episode of the Snob, with a vicious takedown of the Razzies. And I got to learn more about a movie I had only peripherally heard of.
One of the most memorable Snob episodes ever.
My mother used to whip me with wire hangers, they aren't that bad really, they just sting and leave a mark afterwards. (I'm from Asia, it's common.)
Great review of what looks like a great movie though. Really undeserving of the Razzie it got.
Sees Verizon commercial, begins Joan Crawfording
Don't anyone forget that John Carpenter's The Thing won a Razzie for worst score.
Nominated, not won.
Wow, it's not even 10 am here and now I'm furious.
I never bothered looking into the Razzies and now I know why.
If I' am not mistaken The Shining was also nominated for a Razzie for worst director.
I've got to be honest, for the longest time, I have completely and utterly hated this movie because of the abuse in it. I've viewed it maybe once, then never again. However, after seeing your review for it, I can at least re-evaluate my stance against this movie and appreciate the performance Fey Dunaway puts on. I'll admit the abuse scenes are not an easy watch, but I can at least admire how well Ms. Dunaway acted.
Surely if your reason for disliking the movie was how off-putting and repulsive the scenes of abuse were then it kind of did its job? I mean what should a film about child abuse be if not repulsive?
Damn, Harry Goz plays a Pepsi exec and not one John Colatrane or Happy Cake Oven reference to be found. Brad, you're losing your touch!
I think it was the movie carrying the weight of this video and not as much Snob's "personality", just like his endless love review.
The movie is OK, personally I found it a bit boring and overwrought.
Much like Caligula I just don't see much appeal in it outside the outlandish performances.
That is an awesome 1952 Pontiac Station Wagon she's driving at the 19:12-ish minute mark.
YOU FOOL!!! That was Rule 63, not Rule 34!
Brad, while I love your work I think you had two kinds of stupid when judging this cinematic slop! The acting is just over the top rubbish and dialog too Corney to be taken seriously- this was just awful with a capital A I'm no troll but man,Brad you must have rocks in your head if you think this movie has any merit whatsoever Now go and mock the cuckoo clocks of hell
It's almost like we're two different people with two different opinions or something!
Wow you actually responded to me- geez, now I feel a bit sheepish, what knocked me was not the opinion but the self righteous attitude you gave off during the review but then again I guess that's the purpose of the cinema snob so point goes to you anyway, thanks for the call back like I said you're really entertaining and I should really just relax - but you are the first guy Ive ever seen that defended this turkey so it is a little bit jarring I mean at least with Caligula I can see a good movie buried under the perversions so I know you are not totally tilted take care and thanks for answering me P.S. Is it Brad or the cinema snob I don't want to come off as rude or a dick.
The fact that the Snob addressed you should make you feel honored and lucky.
He's never responded to one of my comments, probably because he knows that I watch Panda sex videos from Spain.
20 bucks says you will make a Crystal Pepsi joke.....
23:09 later: Yep, I was right.........
Had me rolling at the American Psycho reference.
Amazing how I stomached this when I first saw it on TV in the 90's. Now it's too traumatic inducing to even "hear" the abuse scenes watching this video.
I don't know if this would even be considered under dark comedy/dark humor. The film though is extremely disturbing to be called campy. Unless trauma can somehow be campy just by being traumatic. Tragically ludicrous. Ludicrously tragic. It still means IMO liking tragedy without being sad about it. And there's no way I would find this enjoying if I can't even watch the dang thing at all.
Fucking thank you!
When I watched this movie a few years ago, it struck me as heart wrenching and horrifying. It portrayed the idea of living with abuse, that feeling of constant anxiety, better than any film I've ever seen. Then, because I kind of went in blind, I read later about all the shit it got and I just didn't understand.
I still don't but thank you. This is a movie, along with Requiem for a Dream, that I find hard to watch because of the emotions they evoke. I am glad at least one other person seems to agree with me on it's quality and the quality of it's actors.
Hey Brad, I watched this movie for the first time tonight after seeing you had a review up for it. I normally wouldn't have bothered, but I figured if the Snob is reviewing such a well known movie, then I must be really missing out on something truly spectacular and holy shit was I not disappointed.
The only serious problems saw with the film were the rather sloppy handling of the time jumps and the disappearing acts of some of the characters with little to no exploitation, particularity Christopher. I must have spent half the film wondering what happened to him, until he suddenly showed up again for the final scene. Otherwise, the movie was just as fascinating to watch, at it was completely disturbing, tragic and sometimes even scary.
Faye Dunaway did one hell of a job and I just cannot understand how this movie could be considered campy, let alone win a razzie for worst picture of the decade. It's just another example on how little these award ceremonies mean. Faye Dunaway was likely shafted because of the Hollywood inner circle at the time disapproving of how the movie put Joan Crawford in a bad light and not because of her performance, or the movie being poorly made.
I just need to thank you again man, if it weren't for this review I would have likely never watched this movie and I would have continued to completely miss out on one hell of a film.
What were the Razzies' problems? Was there a shortage of actual shitty movies in 1978 o_O ?
Sorry Brad, sometimes you manage to change my mind about a movie, but you just didn't this time. Mommie Dearest will forever be a classic "bad movie night" movie. Probably the best comparison I can make to Faye Dunaway's acting here would be Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. They're both just trying so so so so damn hard, but you just can't take it seriously.
They should have given the Razzie to whoever played adult Christina. God, she was horrible.
Damnit, Brad... That was fucking fantastic. I don't usually post on the comments, but damnit... This was probably one of your best episodes. I love when you blend your Snob opinion with your actual opinion of the film, ESPECIALLY when you had the build up at the end when you took your glasses off. That moment was fucking legendary.
I remember reading somewhere that Joan Crawford had Borderline Personality Disorder, which explains her wild mood swings, and possibly OCD. I don't know if it's true, or not (or if this story period, is true. Mixed sources and all). Of course, it doesn't make her behavior okay, but at least there's an explanation behind it?
It definitely doesn't excuse the behavior or abuse, but it does help to make others understand what caused her to do such things. I believed the part about Joan having OCD when it came to cleaning, she took a job as a maid in her teen years to help pay her tuition when she attended St. Agnes Academy (this was because her mother's first husband Henry Cassin, who was not Joan's father, whom enrolled her separated from Joan's mother), which earned her ridicule from her peers for being poor, but she was also reportedly abused by the wife of the academy's headmaster, whom would beat Joan if she did not clean everything to the wife's liking. This was what I read from Wikipedia, so the information might not be entirely accurate.
Now what I read from the profile on the TCM website, (which I do believe, since the entire network lives and breathes classic movies and Old Hollywood actors and actresses, suffice it to say, Robert Osbourne knows his shit) was that Joan Crawford was having a sexual relationship with Henry Cassin (ie he was molesting her) when she was 11-years-old, so that could explain why she had been married four times, divorced three, and had all those lovers. That might have also played into her abuse of Christina. It's not a stretch that when someone is molested/raped, especially a child, it can fuck with their psyche and that, plus the way Hollywood began snubbing her for films by the time she was 35 (MGM was already giving her a meager salary, and when she hit her mid-thirties, they were telling her she was "too old" to star as the lead woman in their films), it could very well be that Joan was extremely jealous of Christina's youth and beauty. It would explain why in the movie, Joan was either constantly calling or referring to Christina as a whore or "trollop" when Christina was sixteen.
Is it bad that I sympathized with Joan for not being able to find work in Hollywood because she was aging? MGM really screwed over their female actresses (Judy Garland, Shirley Temple, etc.), and it's especially hard when you're not allowed to age, and things don't seem to have changed much for women, except studios don't put their actors on amphetamines and barbiturates.
I don't think so at all. I definitely empathize with Joan, being a woman myself, and knowing that Hollywood was and still is, a business that heavily relies on the physical appearance of their female actors as opposed to the male ones. I guess it's good that Hollywood doesn't dope up their female actors anymore (or crams diet pills down their throats like they did with Judy Garland), and their actually giving aging starlets more roles in film and television (kinda), except a lot of the roles is of the sex-starved MILF that's been shot-up with botox and nipped, tucked, and sucked to the point of looking plastic.
Joan Crawford wasn't fired from MGM. The contract was terminated by mutual consent and Joan had a new three-movie deal with Warner Brothers two days later.
It looks like they really wanted the 'Joan goes Godzilla on the garden' scene but needed to give her an excuse for doing so.
The Razzies are never honest? So... You're saying things like Breaking Dawn Part 2, Bayformers, Catwoman, Jack and Jill and countless other actual shitty movies didn't deserve their Razzies?
It's not like the Oscars are much better anyway.
With the exception of "Catwoman" and "Revenge of the Fallen", there was almost always at least one worse movie that came out on when the movies you mentioned won their Razzies. "That's My Boy" was worse than "Breaking Dawn, Part 2", "Bucky Larson" was worse than "Jack and Jill", and nearly every movie that won during the 2000s was worse than "Battlefield Earth".
I'm not saying that any of these movies didn't deserve their Razzies. I'm saying that there were plenty of movies that deserved their Razzies more than the ones that won. 3/4 of the winners were just the most popular movies to hate.
Point to me where I said every movie nominated for a Razzie was good.
The comments on this website are almost as random and unrelated as comments one would read on Youtube.
By the way Brad, I noticed that as the years have gone by, your eyes have gotten a lot more blueish. They're even blue in the title picture.
Dude your eyes must have been workin at the gym these past few weeks. Those are some buff eyes!
what was also left out was the fact that she also was abused as a child. her family worked at a laudrymat sorry for the shitty spelling.
so her anger also stems from there she also was beaten as well.
and treated like shit. hence the wire hangers, she was i think also beat as a kid. when her daughters book was put to the publishers.
from what i have read, it was badly written, and they added
shit in, that didnt' happen to sell more books.
they also had someone rewrite it as well. the version out now is the i believe original version as was 1st submitted i hear.
anyways, the wire hangers in the book says it happend 3 times, when it was only once, people who knew joan best say they never saw any of this, others say it was like that.
it's hard to keep track on what did happen cause Christina does
change her stories. from what i hear. i dunno if that is true or not.
but even if some of is true, i think she was treated like shit, cause Joan was treated like shit. she also was unable to have kids as well. i forget why though. Joan i mean. and was obbessed with aging. she looked in the mirror one day and realized how old she looked and than she decided to pull a greta garbo, which is never go in public ever again.
Well, I commented on this one on Blip already, and now I'm here. Personally I like the whole Razzie and Golden Turkey thing, I like that Oscar parodies exist that celebrate the worst of cinema. Whether or not whatever wins a Razzie deserves it or not is certainly open for debate, I do realize that. And I was really surprised to hear the Snob mention them at length in this review.
It's interesting because I had actually seen the movie a few months before the Snob reviewed it, out of morbid curiosity. Many films I read about that are notorious for their awfulness I really like to see for myself. Caligula, for example. And MD was pretty terrible. But whether or not it deserves what Razzies it received? Well, I don't know. At least I was able to see where "I am NOT one of your FANNNSSS!!" came from, the Snob used that as a phone-based joke back at the beginning. In the "Video Violence" review, IIRC.
And it's interesting to note that the studio were convinced after seeing it that the only way to make it work for audiences was to market it as a comedy. However, the producer took it seriously and was convinced he had made a serious drama about child abuse, among other things, so they had to discontinue the whole "The Mother Of All Movies" campaign where they showed a wirehanger dangling off the title in the trailer.
I like that you reviewed this one. I guess that's how I'll end this.
The accusations that Faye Dunaway was unneccessarily "over the top" is, if I may, complete bullshit. My mom has a similar condition to what Crawford has in this movie (Borderline Personality Complex) and I was actually SHOCKED by how accurate the representation of it is in this movie. Being "overdramatic" (both due to narcissism and poor control of emotions), mood swings, impulsive behavior, a persecution complex, sudden screaming and so on were completely accurate even if the seem to "silly" to you (yeah thanks for that btw I wasn't aware the image of me dealing with my mom would apparently be amusing to so many people), only a naive critic too happy to jump to conclusions and nitpick would watch this movie and think that her personality was just made up or not accurate. I'm glad Brad defended this movie, I was unaware it won razzies and I'm surprised that it did. Anyways you can dislike this movie for other reasons I'm sure (though I always enjoyed it) but I think the issue isn't Dunaways's acting, it's people being so poorly informed they smugly think Crawford's portayal is laughable and unbelievable despite being completely on point (see "Dunning-Kruger effect").
It might be because I'm not from America, but I love Brad's voice. Although, I find it's more his inflections and points of emphasis rather than his accent. The way he said "clear complexion" made me go back to listen again. I must sound really creepy right now, but I just adore how lovely his voice is.
featuring Kevin Arnold in drag as Christina
Learning that this movie earned a Razzie pisses me off to no end. This movie is beautifully shot! There aren't enough mainstream publicized movies that handle child abuse and the stress of someone who is mentally unstable well or honestly at all! Urgh, makes me want to punch the people who said "Hey, let's give it to this movie because wouldn't it be the funniest thing ever? :B "
To be fair, the American Film Institute treats this film with more respect than the Razzies, with Joan as one of the 50 greatest villains in their 100 Heroes and Villians list, and the wire hangers quote as one of the 100 greatest movie quotes.
One of my favorite episodes--which are many! I love it when the Snob sarcastically puts morons into place who thought this movie would be harmless and a-okay to market later as a comedy and whatnot.
Curious, though, Brad: have you ever watched What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? That's one AMAZING movie, but I gotta say Bette Davis steals the spotlight. (Related but not: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte is another great Davis film, too.) Sorry if these have ever been asked before--as I said, still pretty new here and haven't watched everything yet!
Faye Dunaway was not the first choice to play Joan, it was Anne Bancroft. As much as I like her I just couldn't see Anne in Joan's ankle strap shoes. And no matter who I have talked to at Drag shows, we can quote that movie line for line.
this movie traumatized the shit out of me when i saw it as a then 9 year old kid, as a 30 year old adult even seeing clips of it makes me want to weep openly out of fear.
what a review!
I have never understood why this film is considered campy. I first saw it as a kid and it freaked me out. At that point, I wasn't aware that my father's treatment of me was wrong. It opened my eyes. As an adult, I saw it again and it was just as frightening. While my dad's violent behavior stemmed from paranoid schizophrenia, he was a lot like Joan Crawford in this film. Faye Dunaway was chilling in this. It strikes that people who dismiss this film really have no concept of what child abuse is like to endure.
I do think a lot of the criticism came (and still comes) from people who believe Christina made all of it up as revenge for her disinheritance. Many of Crawford's friends denied seeing any abuse, but there are also a lot of people who couldn't believe my dad beat me, even after he was arrested for it.. Abuse is quite easy to hide and easier to miss.
As an interesting side note, all three of Crawford's daughters were adopted through the notorious baby broker, Georgia Tann. Tann would kidnap children and sell them, if they didn't die of neglect in her care first.
I have been reluctant to read the book for obvious personal reasons, but I might get to it on of these days. Maybe. Gory horror films don't scare me. Mommie Dearest scares me!
Anyway, another brilliant review!
Typical that a movie where a character solely acts stupid, or violent, or assholeish, would be celebrated, but an accurate portrayal of what actual mentally ill people act like would be mocked. Then again, while I love 80's movies, it was sometime in the 80's that the world started to decide that only the most exaggerated, caricature-like depictions of anything counted. No no, we can't have a teenager who sometimes smokes pot, she has to be a druggie to rival Keith Richards. A girl sleeping with a boy? Only if she's taken more cock than Tera Patrick. A larger-than-average strong guy? No, he needs to look like a line-backer for the Patriots before we'll even consider making him "tough". A kind of prickish dude? No, he has to be the biggest fucking asshole in the state, to the point that his "bullying" is attempted goddamn murder. I guess I see why "moderately deviation from the norm" might not be as catchy as someone who is a dramatic statistical outlier, but it also makes so many characters in modern cinema unrelatable, unbelievable, and ultimately uninteresting. They are fucking cartoon characters.
what the fuck you are going on about
As you can see, this comments section, and much of the world at large when the movie was released, bagged on the film because of Dunaway's performance. It's not consistent, nor is it really that crazy, so people thought it was just bad and hammy. But they are wrong; very few people who are mentally ill are just ranting lunatics and this performance is exactly like how many people with emotional disorders would behave. However, Hollywood has gradually and consistently moved in that direction, making everything exaggerated, so people who saw this movie were like "No, that's not how a crazy person acts, it's not like she's the Joker or something!" and so they rejected it as neither realistic nor appropriately dramatic. It's like how being blind really sucks, but a blind person in a movie is also a bumbling fool (assuming he doesn't have magic powers) because they think that if a person isn't tripping over tables every 5 minutes, they won't seem handicapped enough. The acting here should be emulated; this is one way a disordered person is likely to act, unlike say Hannibal Lecter, who is interesting on screen but basically total bullshit, even though Hopkins got an Oscar and Dunaway got a Razzie (or the movie did because of her, close enough).
So does this movie decent to level of well known stinkers like The Shining and The Thing? (Among couple of others what ruined the whole Razzie thing early on). Going to find out.
"Oh, by the way, merry fuckin' Christmas!"
14:45 - TAKE OUT AN APPENDIX!
I meant 14:40. Stupid keyboard.
I'm posting this here because it's the first Google result for what I was actually looking for: Brad, what happened to your review of The Fourth Kind? It was very entertaining to me and now it's apparently gone. :/
I've read people saying that Dunaway's rendition of Joan's mental instability is quite spot-on, and that it's really a "I Am Sam" moment. The thing is that, while that's quite true, in terms of narrative and storyline, the fact is that we see it all the time, and there's no time to breathe. Everything is up to eleven all the time, and the director clearly got so entranced that he became the audience, which is not always a good thing.
Simply put, a better director would've known how to work the material and finesse Dunaway's performance. Someone like Brian DePalma, for example. Were the film to ever be remade, either David Fincher or Danny Boyle would be perfect for it.
I once posted on my mom's Facebook page "Dear Mom, Happy Birthday. Thanks for NOT BEING Joan Crawford". Of course, I had to call later and explain it.
In Other News: You watch a movie like "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" and can hardly look at Bette Davis and Joan Crawford as anything more than Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. At first, it's astonishing! It's "Misery" only Jane is anything but Joan's "Number One Fan". It's horrible what goes on, . . . but then you watch this, then you watch "What Ever . . " again and think "Yeah, Bette! Put that skank in her place!"
Some of the older archived videos of 2009 were brought over from the youtube account before thecinemasnob.com was created, so please forgive the lesser video quality of such as some did not transfer well.