Trainwreck (Judd Apatow, 2015)

Message

lacritfan · #1 Post by **lacritfan** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:33 am

Holy crap this is Tilda Swinton in Trainwreck - Link

Luke M · #2 Post by **Luke M** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:39 am

It blew my mind when I saw Tilda's name appear in Trainwreck's end credits. I can't remember the last time I watched an entire movie without recognizing a familiar face.

#3 Post by **mfunk9786** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:20 pm

I have to say - I was never remotely confused about whether that was Tilda Swinton, and the whole dialogue around it being so shocking seems pretty sexist and weird to me (not accusing anyone here of that specifically, but just saying in general)

hearthesilence · #4 Post by **hearthesilence** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:30 pm

Luke M wrote:It blew my mind when I saw Tilda's name appear in Trainwreck's end credits. I can't remember the last time I watched an entire movie without recognizing a familiar face.

This has happened only one time for me, during Broken Flowers. I missed the opening credits, but I'm not sure they would've helped.

#5 Post by **swo17** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:31 pm

I didn't realize it was her in Snowpiercer until the end credits. Also, I saw her once in real life at a Sigur Rós concert. Recognized her instantly.

#6 Post by **domino harvey** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:39 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:I have to say - I was never remotely confused about whether that was Tilda Swinton, and the whole dialogue around it being so shocking seems pretty sexist and weird to me (not accusing anyone here of that specifically, but just saying in general)

Why is it sexist?

TMDaines · #7 Post by **TMDaines** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:42 pm

Not the foggiest. It would have taken me a while to recognise her from that photo.

mfunk being mfunk.

#8 Post by **cdnchris** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:33 pm

Are you saying that it's sexist people don't recognize her or that it's sexist that people are making a big deal? I didn't know people were making a big deal, so I Googled it and saw that there are quite a few "articles" but not that many really (typical PR stuff), and I see it as more along the lines of "hey, I bulked up for this role" or "I lost all this weight for this role" type nonsense that's been around for decades and probably isn't going anywhere. Unless there's stuff on social media I'm missing I don't see it.

Good for you for recognizing her, but neither my wife nor I did when watching the trailer, and it was driving us both nuts because we felt we knew who it was. And yeah, we were surprised it was her when we looked it up because a.) we've never seen her made-up that heavily before to the point of being--hey!-- unrecognizable (I'm assuming she's supposed to be parodying some kind of person, haven't seen the film so can't say), and b.) I never pictured her doing an Apatow film. I think it's cool she's in it and from the trailers it looks like a fun role. But this isn't the only time people haven't recognized an actor (off the top of my head I didn't recognize Hackman in Young Frankenstein or Ned Beatty in Network and I watched those films a lot in my teens) and calling it sexist almost feels like one of those "hey let's be outraged about something on the web" type things because there's nothing better to do.

#9 Post by **mfunk9786** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:51 pm

The media reaction of "Oh man, we never thought this ugly bag could ever look so traditionally attractive - so much so that we didn't even recognize her!" is silly and intellectually dishonest. She looks like she always does with much more makeup and a chic hairstyle. It's not the idea of not recognizing her as much as the tone that those articles have been taking that I was referring to re: taking a sexist approach to discussing the fact that you might need to take a second glance.

#10 Post by **domino harvey** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:01 pm

Can you link to the articles saying those things? Cursory Google search returns a lot of effusive pieces that call her beautiful regardless of this role

#11 Post by **mfunk9786** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:10 pm

It was one or two gossip mag-ish I saw linked on Twitter last week, I'd have to see if I can go back and check when I'm not sneaking little looks at the forum at work. But I'm glad to hear it re: what you're saying about most of the press on it out there and I stand partially corrected.

carmilla mircalla · Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:16 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:The media reaction of "Oh man, we never thought this ugly bag could ever look so traditionally attractive - so much so that we didn't even recognize her!" is silly and intellectually dishonest. She looks like she always does with much more makeup and a chic hairstyle. It's not the idea of not recognizing her as much as the tone that those articles have been taking that I was referring to re: taking a sexist approach to discussing the fact that you might need to take a second glance.

Uh... well I can kinda see what you're saying I mean if she was generally regarded as unattractive but is she in fact generally regarded as unattractive?

But I don't think anyone here is taking the approach in those articles you've apparently read. And I am another person who was surprised to find out it was her.

mfunk9786 wrote:It was one or two gossip mag-ish I saw linked on Twitter last week, I'd have to see if I can go back and check when I'm not sneaking little looks at the forum at work. But I'm glad to hear it re: what you're saying about most of the press on it out there and I stand partially corrected.

Well I have no idea why something gossip-ish would ever poke at someone's appearance...

#13 Post by **cdnchris** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:33 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:The media reaction of "Oh man, we never thought this ugly bag could ever look so traditionally attractive - so much so that we didn't even recognize her!" is silly and intellectually dishonest. She looks like she always does with much more makeup and a chic hairstyle. It's not the idea of not recognizing her as much as the tone that those articles have been taking that I was referring to re: taking a sexist approach to discussing the fact that you might need to take a second glance.

Then yeah, I see where you're coming from. That's pretty ridiculous.

flyonthewall2983 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:42 pm

I saw the most watered down version of that statement in a EW headline on my Facebook this morning, so I know exactly where funk is coming from on this.

#15 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:09 am

mfunk being mfunk

Drucker · #16 Post by **Drucker** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:11 pm

So has anyone seen the movie and have any thoughts? How does it compare to other Apatow films? Also: does Amy Schumer live up to the hype? Honestly have not watched her show or stand-up yet. (Have tried to convince wife to give it a shot, she already shoots down, so haven't had chance).

#17 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:02 pm

His entire family doesn't show up, so it's better than the others just based on that alone. But in all seriousness, it's easily the best work he's done since Knocked Up (or The 40 Year Old Virgin if that wasn't your cup of tea) despite a very shaggy feeling throughout because of a bunch of comedians, athletes, and 'as themselves' cameos peppering the cast (in other words, non-actors, and it often shows despite some winning/funny moments with some of them [Dave Attell is a national treasure]). Schumer's performance improves as the film goes along, and her script feels a bit desperate to have a little of everything in it, but it's a rock solid first effort and a good outlet for Schumer to just be funny, which is all I wanted from it.

hearthesilence · #18 Post by **hearthesilence** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:21 pm

Did you see Richard Brody's review? He loves it, probably more than any other critic - he makes passing but serious comparisons to Jacques Tati, Jerry Lewis, John Cassavetes AND Howard Hawks. FWIW, he also suggests that Funny People was Apatow's best film and a masterpiece.

Drucker · #19 Post by **Drucker** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:22 pm

Thanks. I'm generally an Apatow-crew fan, and Superbad came out when I was 20, so I loved it, quite frankly. That said, I'm a bit over the: cool/crude first half/slowly learn life lesson/nearly throw it all away/everything works out in the end formula of every film. And while Bridesmaids made me laugh enough to make up for it, I don't know that Schumer's overall crudeness will be up my alley.

Haven't seen Funny People, unfortunately...

#20 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:35 pm

I haven't re-watched Funny People since I was very disappointed with it upon release, but it certainly has had a building cult since that time that has me intrigued to an [admittedly limited] extent.

colinr0380 · #21 Post by **colinr0380** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:06 pm

I remember vaguely liking Funny People when I last watched it (though I wished I were watching Cosmo Vitelli instead!) and it remains the only Adam Sandler film I've so far been able to tolerate (yes, that includes Punch-Drunk Love, though thats borderline watchable!), but it heavily reminded me throughout of that 1980s Tom Hanks and Sally Field film Punchline, which suffered from almost entirely the same issues of being overlong and having to handle a problematic balance between drama and comedy, feeling the need to show us the 'tears of a clown'. (I love the hilariously inappropriate approach taken by that trailer to Punchline - throw some twinkly upbeat jazz on there and cut back and forth between the two comic scenes in an otherwise surprisingly grim drama of broken dreams, and the audience'll flock to it!)

Roger Ryan · #22 Post by **Roger Ryan** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:17 pm

Schumer's performance is funny and appears fairly effortless while her script mirrors much of Apatow's output in that it's all over the place. The romantic comedy formula seems to get in the way of the episodic approach Schumer is more comfortable with. Many of the best scenes could be sketches found on her TV show, but the attempt to stitch these scenes together for a two-hour+ film is predictably wearying. INSIDE AMY SCHUMER is primarily concerned with satire whereas TRAINWRECK is not - so, at least, one layer of what makes the TV show so much fun is missing from the film. Fans of Bill Hader may be surprised/disappointed that he is only used as a straight man for Schumer and LeBron James (who's quite good). A better comic match for Schumer is John Cena who delivers some very funny material; I was sorry to see him disappear from the film so early.

#23 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:01 pm

I thought LeBron James, affable and obviously game though he is, was quite stiff and the jokes he was given were SNL monologue-level obvious, intensely self-referential and benign. Cena indeed fared better, but setpieces like the one in the movie theater seemed to go on forever and the fact that he's not necessarily an improvisational performer was glaring as the clock continued to tick on. And gosh, that fake dog-walking movie! There are definitely flaws in this film. It's very messy, but luckily it's [mostly] lovably so.

hearthesilence · #24 Post by **hearthesilence** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:45 pm

FWIW, when Apatow was shooting this in NYC, he would do surprise comedy sets at the Comedy Cellar. I didn't even know he still did stand-up until a friend of mine actually saw one of those sets. Finally caught his set from The Tonight Show yesterday, and it was wicked stuff, especially the last two minutes on Cosby.

lacritfan · #25 Post by **lacritfan** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:22 am

Fuck...Three Dead After Shooting at 'Trainwreck' Screening in Louisiana

Site Menu