FILM REVIEW: Secretary - Page 2

jakethebake · #11 10-27-2005, 12:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just really dislike James Spader, and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

AEKDBet · #12 10-27-2005, 12:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A decent movie with terrible casting. This had serious potential and they blew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a story about true love, just in a f'd up way. I liked this move very much.

Casting was awesome btw.

diebitter · #13 10-27-2005, 12:47 PM

Rweally about Maggie. Yeah she is funny looking, but didn't you feel she got more attractive as her confidence/womanliness grew? (we are talking relative attractive here).

jakethebake · #14 10-27-2005, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rweally about Maggie. Yeah she is funny looking, but didn't you feel she got more attractive as her confidence/womanliness grew? (we are talking relative attractive here).

[/ QUOTE ]

More like less unattractive.

CD56 · #15 10-27-2005, 01:16 PM

IIRC it was based on a short story, and after I watched it i felt like they had stretched 40 minutes worth of material into 1.5 hours

Swax · #16 10-27-2005, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just really dislike James Spader, and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL why? I think the only reason that the role worked at all was because the girl was supposed to look sort of plain-jane/frumpy in it. If the female lead would have been "gorgeous" or whatever it would have rendered the entire movie totally unbelievable. Granted, I agree with you guys that the flick wasn't all that great, but I don't think that the casting was the reason - I think the casting was pretty much spot on. I think you're SUPPOSED to detest Spader, and he is definitely very loathable.

jakethebake · #17 10-27-2005, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just really dislike James Spader, and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL why? I think the only reason that the role worked at all was because the girl was supposed to look sort of plain-jane/frumpy in it. If the female lead would have been "gorgeous" or whatever it would have rendered the entire movie totally unbelievable. Granted, I agree with you guys that the flick wasn't all that great, but I don't think that the casting was the reason - I think the casting was pretty much spot on. I think you're SUPPOSED to detest Spader, and he is definitely very loathable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean I detest his characters. I just don't enjoy his acting. I think they could've easily found someone hot that could play down to the role early in the movie instead of finding someone ugly to try and make sexy at the end. Watching some hot get spanked would've made the movie infinitely better.

RunDownHouse · #18 10-27-2005, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[/ QUOTE ]
40 Days and 40 Nights is as good as Gyllenhaal will ever look.

Blarg · #19 10-27-2005, 04:13 PM

That was a hilarious review. The worshipful horseshit around Jack Welch has been piled so high it's great to finally see someone kicking over the enormous pile.

Blarg · #20 10-27-2005, 04:17 PM

The guy's ability to get away with this so easily in a work setting, not to mention his willingness to attempt it, instantly dropped this movie onto the level of an absurd fantasy in my mind. Often lodging there raises a movie, not drops it, if you can have fun with the imagination of it. For me, the idea he could get away with this in the workplace was so jarringly unreal I couldn't accept the entire idea of the movie, so I didn't go. I think these relationships can be complex, and you don't really see them on the screen, but I got the impression you wouldn't see one on the screen here, either. Anyway, it looked more like a dumb masturbatory fantasy than a movie to me, so I skipped it. Reading more about it hasn't managed to convince me I'm wrong. And the male lead seems so washed out and dull to me, too. All in all, I don't feel any urgency to see this. I might buy it if it was going for 50 cents in the bargain bin, then put it on a shelf and forget about it for a dozen years.