Straight outta compton

Maybe theatres were taking precautions not based on prejudice, but experience, which is sad. Anyone remember there were incidents (probably putting it mildly) at screenings of Boyz N' The Hood? When I went to see that the room was filled with a mix of mostly black and Latino moviegoers. As the movie ended there was some stupid posturing done by some idiots. A black woman was hit in the head with a glass bottle; I saw the bottle in the air before it hit her but didn't see who threw it.

As was said in the article, a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us.

 

Experience? Half the theaters that are open today weren't in existence when Boyz N' The Hood played in theaters. So does that mean they will be beefing up security for chick flick comedies 20 years from now. I doubt it.

Increased security in screenings of Straight Outta Compton has the foul stench of prejudice to me.

 

Increased movie theater security has been an issue since the Aurora Colorado shooting. Though I'm guessing "security" will soon be labeled a secret code words that "the Man" is using to keep people down.

 

I'm all for increased security at theaters as long as they do double duty on policing cell phone use and talking during the movies. That way they will actually be useful.

 

No doubt that there are prejudicial undertones to extra security measures being taken for screenings of movies like SOC. I've no doubt that at most screenings of SOC or even BNTH there wasn't even the mere threat of violence. Unfortunately, there are knuckleheads who could go to this movie and start any manner of nonsense to prove their manliness or whatnot. Also, one never knows because two girls at a chick flick could disagree as to which of the two guys the girl in the chick flick has to choose from is hotter, or whether she wore stylish outfits or not and fight over that. The number of theatres isn't the issue.

Amen brother.

I've yet to see Straight Outta Compton but intend to.

 

It's not good enough of an excuse. If you are going to add extra security to one movie, add them to all movies with violence. The cold, hard reason they do it is because they think that a bunch of young Black folks are gonna riot or shoot somebody. That's all. That is racist thinking.

Correct. There are two stalker movies out, or that will be out very soon. Why not have extra security for those? Who knows? Some disgruntled boyfriend, or some guy who was bullied in high school might want to take their anger out on a bunch of movie goers.

 

Anyone remember the "incidents" at the last screening of an action-adventure movie? I'm not buying it. You guys quit trying to make excuses for these movie theatre owners.

 

lol, now that the card has been dealt I guess there's nothing left to say.

 

I'll say that the movie is now playing at the VIP 19+ cinema near me, so maybe I'll check it out now.

 

Oh great, now somebody just played the "card" card.

 

If I were watching a movie that was set in the early-60s, and Light My Fire started playing on the juke box, I would first go "WTF" and then "Cool!" .....my kinda movie.

 

Short of a full deck. Seems about right...

 

Just got back from seeing this. Luckily for the movie, my seat was in the center of the aisle and there were too many people to crawl over to leave early, which I desperately wanted to do.

Extra security. Why? This movie is doesnt have an angry bone in it's body.

I'll say it straight out -- this movie is dull. Like every rock or "contemporary" biographic I've seen, it just doesn't work as a film. It was another band story that plays out like soap opera on the screen: conflicting personalities, crooked managers, and a couple musical numbers thrown in. Like so many other stories of bands, Straight Out of Compton treads familiar ground. Worst of all, the film failed to make me think: "What geniuses these guys were! Now I get it!" I was hoping to walk away from this film with a new love for NWA and by what these guys did to reshape music -- but it wasn't enlightening or persuasive in that way. The music was used badly like in most of these biopics; they're in such a rush to get back to telling the long, long story, you get a snippet here and there of a song -- not even enough to leave an impression.

Why don't these biopics of bands ever work? Maybe because life is made up of unconnected incidents (despite what the synchronicity patrol might think) and while we all can look back and sigh or shudder over the momentous events in our lives, that doesn't mean our lives would make an interesting story. I sat watching "Straight Out of Compton" and realized I was watching a string of events pulled from the history of N.W.A -- fictionally recounted, which doesn't help -- and that translates as a story without a core or, even worse for a movie, any real driving narrative or direction. It certainly doesn't have a conclusion. The movie just sort of ends. The audience sat there silently unsure if they should leave at my showing.

I'll risk sacrilege here to say it reminded me of one of those dull Beatles or Sinatra biopics they made for television. Oh, my, here's the scene were Paul first meets John! A momentous musical moment! Only, onscreen its: "Hey, I'm John." "Hi, I'm Paul." Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Being historical doesn't equal being interesting. It takes a BIG life to make an interesting biopic. TE Lawrence, Howard Hughes, Abraham Lincoln, or an incredibly challenged one: Helen Keller Story, My Left Foot, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Now those are memorable stories. For some reason, "Eazy-E's Wet and Wild Party" (yes, this was a historical titlecard) just didn't carry the same kind of gravitas a titlecard like "Pearl Harbor 7:55 am" would carry. Not to say what these guys did wasn't important to music, but it also wasn't terribly different from what has come before and after. Let's see, Controversial Music? That could include Elvis, the Beatles, the Doors, the Sex Pistols, Eminem, hell, just wait until the Miley Cyrus story hits the screen! I felt Straight Out of Compton promised more fireworks than it delivered (the inclusion of actual dramatic news reports and television footage, only made it feel more like dull historical reenactment)

The direction and editing were just passable (there one scene where Paul Giammatti says the exact same line twice without it having been excised, just sloppy work) as someone said early in this thread, it has a slightly amateurish feel. While the acting (the leads, anyway) were very good, and I actually began to like the characters of Ice Cube and Eazy-E (Doctor Dre was a bit shallow as a character), it didn't happen soon enough. The audience I saw it with seem to enjoy the humor the most, but that all fell away after the first quarter of the movie. Then it suddenly it turned sentimental with Eazy-E getting sick which made me say: "What the hell am I watching here, "Brian's Song?" Maybe they should have focused more on Easy-E, then maybe the film would have worked as a drama. Maybe it's just impossible to pull this kind of film off. I think the modern music biopic is just a failed concept. I'd much rather watch a documentary about a band. A few seconds of real footage always gives your more insight into what a band was than 2 1/2 hours of trumped-up melodrama.


"

 

Well this turned out to be yet another winner for Universal in a year that was chock full of them.

Nearing $120 million on a $28 million budget. In 2014 Universal had the biggest profit margin of any major studio...and this year they've basically just walked away with everything.

 

Saw it Saturday. Wanted to give it a couple of weeks so we wouldn't be bothered by the amateur moviegoers. Enjoyable enough, but nothing special. You're never going to get a deep portrait of anyone when they are a producer on the film. I'm sure there is a great film to be made of this material, but it would have to be made without the cooperation of Cube or Dre. A good title would be "Testosterone Poisoning".

 

What is an "amateur" moviegoer if not a professional reviewer?

It's really cool that this movie has now grossed more than "Walk The Line", making it the highest-grossing biopic in history. So much for the idea that this movie would only appeal to a small number of people. HAH!

 

The people who don't go see movies every week. I've seen more than a hundred films in the theater so far this year, and every single one of those has been a pleasant experience. And the secret of that is to never see popular films when they have just opened. We see those films on weekdays, or a couple of weeks into the run. Weekends, we see arthouse films, foreign language films or indie ones. For instance, last Saturday night, we saw a Chinese film called Go Away, Mr. Tumor that we loved, and saw Straight Outta Compton Sunday afternoon when there was virtually nobody in the theater. If you go see a big, popular movie the first weekend it opens, you're going to be crowded by people who only see one or two movies a year in the theater who just plain don't know how to behave in a theater - checking their phones, talking, etc. And the term for anyone who doesn't do a particular thing regularly or well is an amateur.

 

I see. It's your use of that word that is confusing. I've never seen anyone use the word "amatuer" in that context before.

FWIW, I never see a movie when it first opens for the very reason you mention. For all that matters, I usually just wait until it comes out on blu-ray so I can watch it in the comfort and quiet of my own home. No one talking/texting on their phones, giving away the plot because they've seen it ten times, giving a constant annoying commentary (like an ex-girlfriend used to do), kids throwing ice cubes and popcorn from the back, people drinking beer, audio that's too loud...

 

We have an excellent home theater with a 10' screen, but nothing is like seeing a movie in the theater. As I said, with careful planning we have been able to avoid all those people who don't know how to behave in a theater. Besides, it's home video that has caused the epidemic of rudeness among theater goers, making people forget how they should act in a theater, thinking they are in their own homes.

 

I don't care how good a home theater setup is, it doesn't come close to sitting in a classic movie theater like the Vista in Silverlake and soaking up the atmosphere of the theater along with the film.

 

I don't agree. It all goes back to parenting.

 

Sure, at the heart of it is a lack of empathy, but at the very least people getting used to watching movies in their homes sure hasn't helped. We have a home theater, and other than being able to pause the movie, we treat it like a movie - pitch dark, and it is all about the film.

 

I'm not a White Sox fan, so I'm treading in dangerous waters here... but I went to a Sox game a few weeks ago and I did notice
that the photos around the stadium showed a variety of different uniforms worn by the White Sox over the years.

It's not entirely unusual for cap/shirt vendors to simultaneously sell older "retro" gear.

I, for example, own (and often) wear a hat with a ".45's" logo on it. I bought it a few years ago when the Astros stunk.
It was my way of supporting the local team (or an ancient memory of the team before they were rebranded when the new
stadium showed up several years after Houston got an expansion franchise). I think the "Astros" were the "Colt 45's"
from 1962 to 1964.

I was going to say that in 1989, retro gear was difficult and/or impossible to find - but then I remembered a friend of mine
who I worked with in the late 80s. He was from the Bedford-Stuy section of Brooklyn and I remember him purchasing a hat or a shirt
once worn by a Negro league team from his locality. I'm not sure where he got it, or how difficult it was to find - but it was clearly
an option.

The question isn't why isn't "Easy E" wearing the multi-colored hat worn by the White Sox in 1989, the question is did the White Sox
wear a cap prior to the mid-80s that looks like the one in the film ? Given how many years the team has been around (since the early
1900s), I don't find it hard to believe that there was a retro cap that fits what we saw in the movie.

 

I have a question about Jerry Heller... the manager played by Paul Giamatti in the film...

I'm not familiar with his name. Reading his bio on wikipedia, there are a LOT of names dropped for artists from the 60s and 70s.

So many names, that it makes me wonder how he could have managed all of them.

I'm guessing he more like a concert promoter. Would it be fair to see Heller was like the Bill Graham of Southern California ?

Promoting a concert is not a big commitment. Artists floating through the area would be looking for someone to rent an auditorium
and sell tickets... but that person wouldn't have a continued relationship once the concert was over.

 

It's made more money than Braveheart?