Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
I HATED it when they prettied-up Ally Sheedy.
Fuck John Hughes.
|
hahahaaaaa
yeah here we were yelling and shaking our hands: "what da fuuuuuuuuck!!!" at the tv.
also she doesn't look "pretty" but fucking ridiculous. like a poodle. fucking tragic. an utter violation. ugh!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by choc e-Claire
I enjoyed the movie when I saw it a few months ago - it's pretty good considering that it could just be aimless and it's targeted at an audience that normally wouldn't be down for "sitting around and talking for a day" - but this has always been the weakest link with it. Was there ever a time when that was the preferred look?
(Also I'm very lucky the character named Claire is the other one, I would have never been able to claim there's no link otherwise.)
|
the preferred look... 1950?
oh speaking of the 50s reminds me of the trashy transformation in "grease" hahaha. wtf olivia.
anyway breakfast club i now deem a horrible sinister movie because it appeases on the surface but pushes for conformity in its depths. utterly manipulative. a fitting film for the reagan era. that was another "nice" killer.
maybe try "freaks and geeks"? much better, i swear. or at least i'm blind to any of its possible massive flaws. wayyyy realer. smarter. funny too. too cool a show to be really popular.
re: claire/molly ringwald, we liked her other dad (harry dean stanton) bettter. that man had a great talent for portraying a loser. but loser or not, he was real, his character felt like areal human, know what i mean? her dad in this one... is some plasic douche with 3 lines.
ps a good aimless movie: linklater's "slacker". fucking great! hahaha. i want to rewatch it soon....