in my first months in college. bunch of people from our dorm went to watch this at the "student theater" in the
big club house or what ever. Weird they showed clips of "previews" for some alternative/foreign porn with guys walking around with dicks hanging out.
The other day in some thread I posted a link to a video of the shopping scene from "Pretty Woman", a movie I've never seen before. I subscribe to Blockbuster's movies by mail service, and so ordered it. Seemed like it might be appropriate with me so caught up with hookers lately.
Well, it's a chick flick. Duh! What did I expect? I have to confess, I like the chick flick "Thelma and Louise", but only because Susan Sarandon shoots and kills a guy with a nickel Colt, and then Gena Davis uses the same revolver to rob a couple of stores. Then there's all the scenes in southern Utah, which is my favorite place.
But I don't know what I was expecting from this other than a chick flick. It's a typical Richard Gere movie: successful (or will be successful) guy falls for lower-class girl, and they live happily ever after. "Pygmalion" with sex. Julia Roberts doesn't even make for a convincing hooker, although I think she's a great actress.
I suppose the movie is the dream of a lot of guys on this forum, but they have to become billionaires first to play the role.
Next movie will have some blood and guts. (And, no, it won't be about menstruation)
in my first months in college. bunch of people from our dorm went to watch this at the "student theater" in the
big club house or what ever. Weird they showed clips of "previews" for some alternative/foreign porn with guys walking around with dicks hanging out.
I guess what's really changed in today's TER world from the movie is that "hookers" don't have to look like it when walking the through the BH neighborhoods anymore. Today's providers can support as a single mom and drive a nice SUV lexus while doing so with decent housing. Not much has changed for the client except not having to cruise streets instead virtual search through ad and review boards. Still looks like need to be a billionaire/successful in many ways to make any dream like this happen for the guy
About as far from a "chick" flick as you can get! Gerard Butler KICKS ASS!
I have. Watched it many times. Probably too many.
Revenge makes for good movies. Watch "Harry Brown" with Michael Caine. He's like an octogenarian Charles "Death Wish" Bronson, but his acting really carries the movie. No hookers, though.
How about "Payback" with Mel Gibson?
That was more fun than action. I thought his soon-to-be-dead wife was more attractive than his hooker girlfriend. She (wife) looked damn good in that bustier. 
I tried watching it last night. Since it didn't have it, it recommended another movie with Gerard Butler in it called "Machine Gun Preacher". I made it through 15 minutes of it.
To Attract a Woman, Guys need to have Money. No Woman in this World will ever be with a Guy that has no Money. So in some form all Women are Hookers to a certain Degree. If you have a Girlfriend, try telling her you lost your Job or you don't have any Money. See how fast she'll dump you and start looking for a new Boyfriend.
Your girfriend may not dump you the day you you lost your job but the countdown until she does has begun.
...doing nothing while she brings home the pay.
Those guys either have drugs or play drums.
Are probably relationships of convenience. (What relationship isn't?
Neither one of my husbands made more money than I did, and when we divorced they nor I expected anything. Sure, no one wants to date a BUM, but I also don't require my guy be a damn CEO. Being from New Orleans, women really learn to appreciate guys who work with their hands...welders, mechanics, offshore men, etc. Those guys tend to also be the most faithful and honest men I have ever met because they are humble.
-- Modified on 11/9/2013 9:54:57 AM
Still think money is paramount, but agreed about artisans, mechanics and workmanship. Unfortunately unpatriotic corporatism (the 1%) (and automation) has been by and large taking that way of life away from artisan men and marginalized it. Even career pilots may not make more than McDonald's managers for years.
and a Media board as well.
Occupy was a Corporate controlled Democratic party campaign. Designed to keep you entertained.
Please don't muck up my movie thread with Occupy Wall Street bullshit.
-- Modified on 11/9/2013 11:01:40 PM
I am just informing London Rayne's about her point where I agree there are good guys (that she finds appealing) who value a personal trade or skill rather than just the singular acquiring of wealth, but the compensation of that way of life has drastically continued to deteriorate. Referring to the 1% is not BS, and it relates, instead of ignoring the changes in the wealth gap in the past 23 years since the "Pretty Woman" movie came out. It's much harder today to be a billionaire/successful like the Gere dream character. And agreed with ROGM
The number of wealthy people in the US has been increasing over the years, and the living conditions of the poor have gotten better. Most of the people below the poverty line have at least one car, a color TV, air conditioning, cell phone, and other things that my family didn't have when I was young. (One old used car, a TV my dad built, no air, party line phone, vegetables my mother grew and canned).
If Barack Obama can go from $1 million in 2008 to $12 million in 2013, anybody can. How he did that while making the rest of us poorer, I don't know.
Just to keep this sex related, do you think Michelle Obama swallows? Maybe it's part of her Eat Healthy campaign.
I agree there is mobility up to maybe the 90% but respectfully disagree the 1% area is as mobile and most of the newer wealth has been seriously diverted. But no more debate from me and I hear your points.
Just happened to see one of Burt Reynolds older films earlier today:
http://youtu.be/3NmbzwPTr4s
Kind of not in the mood when thinking about the 1st lady's oral habits, but rather Ms. Welch:
I don't care about some gap or decline in wealth...I said nothing regarding that. All I said was I did not want to date a bum...someone who has no desire to work at all. Regardless of how much money certain professions make is of no concern to me, as long as the man is gainfully employed. Your 1% thing has nothing to do with my post. I don't deny some women are gold diggers, but those are usually the ones who are near 50 and still don't have a Bachelor's Degree, nor can they do anything but spread their legs
For the first ten or so years my ex and I were going together, I didn't have any money. I was in college, then starting out in my chosen career at minimum wage (after making nearly double at my part time job after school). It didn't matter to her then, and I don't think it mattered to her later on when my business went south and I was broke. She was hot, too, so your statement is overly broad.
In my years I have witnessed some of the most physically unattractive, rude, socially retarded males surrounded by totally hot, sexy, concupiscent women.
What was their secret? Conspicuous consumption!
Every childhood fairy tale has the girl saved and subsequently married by the handsome "Prince"; but never the handsome cobbler, blacksmith, farmer, or even butler. And in cultures where marriages are arranged the pairing is done with fiscal considerations forefront. The only irony is the multi-generational Super-rich; where a horse-faced, buck-toothed woman with enough body hair to be mistaken for an Angora sweater is chosen for reasons of further generational wealth and political gain. Those lucky grooms however take solace in having attentive mistresses in every port and every city.
But take heart my proletariat polyamorists. Decrepitude and the Reaper have been historically blind to both wealth and beauty no matter how profligate.
You can have all the love of procreating before asking the law, to make it a three way
The ratio of frogs to princes is skewed heavily in favor of the amphibians.
By Quentin Tarantino
Similar plot the hooker gets the guy, but Christian Slater is no daddy dollar$.
True Romance is one of my ATF movies with lots of blood & killing if that is what peeks your interests. Violence
"You're so cool, you're so cool, you're so cool" lol. Another fave regarding the biz is Dangerous Beauty.
I'll look at the description, but I have a serious political problem with Quentin Tarantino. The guy uses stage blood by the barrel, has some of the most violent movies out there, then has the chutzpah to appear in a "stop the violence" video with other Hollywood types earlier this year after the CT school shootings. He's spilled more blood in his movies than was bled in all of the Iraq war.
I am a movie, buff & a foodie it is what it is. Over analyze if you want, but the man makes great movies.
That Tarantino did not direct "True Romance." He wrote the screenplay. So, while he does have something to do with what ended up on the screen, the amount of blood was really up to the director.
I happen to love the movie, which certainly had its share of violence, but so do so many other movies (Ollie Stone's "Natural Born Killers" being perhaps the most cartoonishly violent I've ever seen). I'm not a Tarantino addict but do like a lot of his movies. And what about the gratuitous violence in the Coen brothers' "Fargo," where you get to see a guy's leg and foot fed into a wood chipper? But they make arty movies so I guess it's OK.
Bottom line: is it a good movie or a bad movie? In the end, the amount of violence has little to do with it. And it's all a matter of taste in the end anyway.
more than any other director I know, but does that mean he is racist or directing that word only towards one race? Of course not. Trust me...watch it. Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Patricia Arquette, Sizemore Brothers, Dennis Hopper (best monologue ever lol)...the list goes on.
And, yes, he does use the "N word" quite a bit in it.
Absolutely classic!
Well, gee. I wonder if Bruce Willis or James Woods or some other "outed" conservative actors could get away with using the N word even once, much less hundreds of times in a single movie ("Django Unchained")? Or would the media go apoplectic?
It's not the fake blood or the acting, it's the hypocrisy of nearly all of them. Tarantino makes extremely violent, bloody movies, but then he starts preaching about ending violence? Sylvester Stallone has probably killed more people on film than General Colin Powell did in his entire military career. Stallone owns real machine guns, like the belt-fed M-60's he uses in his "Rambo" movies. He has (or at least had) his own shooting range in his home. (The cost of an indoor range starts at one million). Yet he has the balls to say that guns should be outlawed?
I have some strong beliefs, as you may have guessed from the above. I don't sell them out for anything or anybody. I'm a lot of things, but I'll never be a hypocrite.
Just because you make a movie ABOUT violence, does not mean you support that in REAL LIFE. You're doing it to sell movies because OTHER people love it. That does not make you a hypocrite, it makes you a genius. A hypocrite would be someone who was really out there beating the fk out of people and then preaching not to do it...last I checked, that has never happened with said Actor/Director. I don't go around advocating for prostitution, yet I am a hooker...it is what it is.
Enough said.
...has a bit part in that movie. Always had a huge thing for her with her big tits, pretty brown eyes, and big happy smile. Wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah.
Julia Taylor is a very unconvincing hooker. Richard Gere doesn't have much depth as an actor. That and all those poor gerbils. Dumb movie.
There's also that British series, Secret Diaries of a Call Girl. Worth watching just because of the subject matter, but not that great. Main character pretty much breaks every rule of being a professional escort.
I heard this in an interview along time ago with the man who wrote the original screen play of Pretty Woman..
The original ending was the Richard Gere character indeed picks up the street walker.
Takes her around. shows here the high life.
She falls in love with him.
At the end of his purchased time, he dumps her ass back onto the street where he found her. Tosses her the cash owed.
He speeds away. That's what he paid for and it's over 'thanks hun'.
She is in the street crying with the money dumped all around her, saying she doesn't want the money (she wants him. implied, I think) Moral: Hey you're a street walker.. what did you expect, to live happily ever after with someone far above your social strata? get real.
Hollywood turned it into this stupid happy ending love story.
and "NO" I don't think men want this fantasy.. house wives like this fantasy or office worker girls who dream of some easy life, like this fantasy.
and YES anyone who watches that movie is Gay.
Want a prostitute movie? what about Leaving Las Vegas (pretty gritty with alcoholism death, Russian gangsters, and butt rape violence). Klute (for a laugh. Jane Fonda a call girl and Rob Snider her pimp) or Duece Bigalow Male Gigolo! silly funny, and kinda sweet. (or a classy classic chick flick when Elisabeth Taylor puts out for dollars in Butterfield 8. Elisabeth Taylor looks pretty hot prancing around in those 1950's industrial bra and panty sets)
If I want a prostitute movie I know I'll enjoy, I'll rent "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" with Sophia Loren. Yeah, I'm old, and so is she. But she looked damned good in that movie.