Channel Awesome
The Cinema Snob sits through truly one of the worst romance films ever made, Old Fashioned.
Tagged with: brad jones cinema snob movies old fashioned
About thecinemasnob
Other Posts By the Author:
56 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I really find Christian media willingness to simultaneous decry the secular media but alos try their damnedest to cash in on the popular trends therein?
I work as a freelance camera operator at a christian tv network (don’t ever go to film school kids, aim for wall seret). The preachers and pastors that they have on the shows talk a lot about generosity and how you shouldn’t be too greedy.
After new years the network decided to cut costs and are now having two camera guys operate three broadcasting cameras while filming, even when it’s live. Still paying minimum wage. The network building itself looks like a scientologists wet dream. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
In a way, I find this to be worse than 50 shades, because while that was the literal fan fiction of one middle woman, and is clearly not something to take that seriously, this movie actually thinks it has some important message to deliver. The idea that anyone could find this horror story to be wholesome or romantic or anything besides disturbing makes my skin crawl.
Agreed. 🙁 Holy fuck. I mean…there are a few KERNELS of the idea of a good, kind man in there somewhere, but what a train wreck for execution and acting, both! And honestly? Yeah, he did do that stripper WAY wrong–she and her pimp were 100% in the right that night. I can possibly get behind the message, but worst possible timing, worst place, worst manners as a guest, worst choice to even go there in the first place!
I refuse to see this movie as a romance. I see it as the tragic tale of a co-dependent woman so desperate to escape her history of abusive relationships that she falls for any asshole who looks at her. The main guy is a creep, the main girl i disturbed, and this movie is, legitimately, not a better love story than Twilight.
I never thought I’d say this, but I’d rather be Christian Grey’s bitch than date this Clay asshole. Look what you made me say, movie, LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME SAY!
O.k. clay looks like more like Michael Bay but sounds like Owen Wilson but more a rapist and that’s why Clay is one of the worst characters featured in a movie on this show that I’ve seen anyway. I still find 50 shades since at least clay didn’t sexually abused this woman like Christian Grey did in 50 shades. Still a good start to this year and I’m planning on watching ever episode you release this year and yes even the exploration films!!!!
I refuse to believe those were actual fans defending this piece of crap.They were probably cast and crew and their relatives.At least the director’s stepdad admitted it. I always thought there was nothing worse than “Over Her Dead Body” which left poor Paul Rudd stranded in an alleged rom-com with horrible people and an idiotic script,but this movie doesn’t even have someone like Rudd to justify its existence.
According to the ratings on IMDB, this romance movie is better than Endless Love, but it’s NOT better than the remake of Endless love. What weird ass world are we living in?
2:44- NAME DROP!
4:25- I feel sorry for ya, Brad. At least there aren’t any jackass movie characters I know of named Eric. Also, Lloyd is a much better actor than the pet cat in this movie.
5:19- Rush Limbaugh would be so proud of this jagoff.
To me, Clay looks like a dollar store version of Cary Elwes.
13:14- This lady isn’t as much of an airhead like, say, Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton, but’s she’s up there.
15:14- I thought nothing good happens after 2 a.m., as said in How I Met Your Mother.
20:04- An this movie has gone to Rock: It’s Your Decision territory. God fuckin’ help us all!
And thus we have possibly THE most uncomfortable romance film since Moment by Moment.
And there’s a major difference between Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Old Fashioned: one is entertaining, the other is this bland piece of shit.
Wow, Snob…just wow…
Though you review the scummiest films on earth and have a tendency toward being, I hope you don’t mind my saying, crass, you are more chivalrous, sweet and noble then this supposed ‘romantic’ film can even begin to grasp. Funny how that works out.
You have restored my faith in humanity and I thank you.
Great review and Happy New Year! 🙂
That’s probably because Brad isn’t under the illusion that he’s being virtuous when he’s in fact being an asshole. Unlike Clay, who thinks he’s a paragon of manly virtue, Brad is honest with himself. Then again, why would you expect anyone who believes in talking snakes to be honest with himself?
Oh, and while Brad may review some pretty scummy films, they’re not the scummiest films on Earth. Diamanda Hagan reviews those.
True, very true…wait, talking what!?!?!? I don’t even want to know.
I dunno, his gentlemanly behavior is so very nice to see, especially in response to this movie, which is so very vile.
Speaking of which, AAAAGGGH!!!! I forgot about the stuff Diamanda Hagen talks about: that stuff is wrong!!!
Talking snakes, as in the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Oh, I thought you were talking of something he’d reviewed
I loved the comment “It doesn’t have to be filth to be good.” It perfectly reflects the absolutist, black-and-white mentality of the kind of Christians this movie was made for. If a movie doesn’t meet their standards, then it’s filth. That’s it. Nothing in between, no–and I hate to use this term because it’s associated with the crappy movie presented as the antithesis of this one, but–no shades of grey. This is how they see the world, in stark, simplistic terms, much the way a child does. It allows them to make instant snap judgments and not have to bother themselves with actually thinking about things or looking beneath the surface. But again, this is to be expected from people who subscribe to a belief system based entirely on blind faith. They have been told from birth to accept this stuff without question and threatened with hellfire if they doubted, because if they actually thought about what they believe, they might start to question it, and we can’t have that, can we?
To quote Mr. Spock: “To expect sense from beings with such extreme points of view is not logical.”
To lump all Christians into your judgement is not an accurate statement, nor is your assessment of why people are Christians in the first place. Do you also have the same opinion of Islam or Mormonism? Do you know any Christians? Have you asked them to share their beliefs and tell you why they believe what they do? Tolerance would direct that you seek to understand and respect those who have different belief systems than you – and not use hateful rhetoric in expressing your differences.
There are many Christians who would find this movie offensive. They simply aren’t commenting on it because they are watching better films in the first place…like normal people do. I will seriously never watch this film. Yuck. I thank the Snob for warning all of us away from it…far, far away.
Go back and re-read what I wrote. I did not lump all Christians together, I specifically said I was commenting on the mentality of the kind of Christians this movie was made for, i.e. Protestant evangelicals. And lest you think I am singling out Christianity for special treatment, I have exactly the same opinion regarding Islam, Mormonism, and every other religion human beings have dreamed up. I don’t say that one untestable belief system devoid of supporting evidence is right and all the other equally untestable belief systems devoid of supporting evidence are wrong just because the one I believe is right happens to be the one I was taught growing up. At least I am consistent in this regard.
I have spoken to many people of faith and asked them why they believe what they believe, and their answers always boil down to the same thing: they believe it because they think it is the right thing to do. I find this argument deeply unsatisfying because it is circular. They believe it because it’s right to and it’s right to because they believe it. Furthermore, all religious people say this, and they can’t all be right, since they each claim to be the only truth, and there can’t be than one only truth. You yourself hold that all other religions are false except your own, so you are an atheist regarding all religions but one. I simply believe in one less religion than you do.
I see no reason to accord respect to beliefs for which there is no evidence just because they are deeply held. I don’t respect people who believe Elvis is still alive, no matter how deeply they believe it, and neither do you, I expect. Yet there is no fundamental difference between believing Elvis is still alive and believing that Jesus is. They both have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence, which is to say none at all. Why is one respectable but the other not? Because one has been held longer by more people? Is that how we determine truth?
No, the way we determine truth—at least in every other aspect of life—is by evidence, and I see no reason to give religion a free pass. If there is evidence to believe something then you should believe it; if there isn’t, then you shouldn’t. Simple as that.
I am sorry that you see no reason why you should respect the deeply held beliefs of others just because you personally see no evidence for them, but I do understand your dissatisfaction with circular reasoning and holding unsupported beliefs just because those are the beliefs someone was raised with. I too, find them to come from a place of ignorance and very, very lazy thinking. Allow me to point out however, that those traits are not exclusive to religion, since many people are atheists because their parents were or they were taught from a more atheistic perspective in their grade school years. I see it as more of a flaw in human nature to live an unexamined life than a flaw of religion per se.
Also remember, as one cannot absolutely prove the existence of a god, one cannot absolutely disprove it either. Both Atheists and Christians have to make an assumption somewhere (for example: eternal matter vs. eternal god), so the real question is, is that assumption warranted or unwarranted, and why? There are many reasons why people believe in a god, such as the ontological argument, the Transcendental argument, Pascal’s Wager, the argument from consciousness, and the argument from reason, to name a few. My point is: just because you have good reasons to believe the way you do does not render other, well thought positions to be unworthy of respect. We can – and should – still respect another position even when we disagree. We are certainly free to examine that belief and criticize it (it’s what I do), but to write that “ALL [emphasis added] religious people say that they believe it’s right to, and it’s right to because they believe it” is NOT an accurate statement – and remember, accuracy/knowledge is the foundation of critical thinking. I can prove your statement wrong easily: I am a religious person and I do NOT believe it “because it is right to and it is right to because I believe it”. A very, very simple summary of my beliefs would be a combination of the ontological argument and the argument from reason (there are other factors too, not going into them here). If you are interested in broadening your horizons a little and learning to understand other points of view besides your own, I would suggest reading “Miracles” by C.S. Lewis, who was a well respected scholar by both his religious and nonreligious peers. Regardless of whether or not you disagree with his arguments, I think you will be able to see why essentially scorning all belief in a god as ignorant and untestable is in error.
Regardless of whether you seek to fully understand the tenets of other peoples beliefs before judging them, I can still respect your position while in disagreement with it because I understand that this is a tough issue that smarter people than you and I have spent their entire lives studying – and come to different conclusions. If anything, I am glad to have spent a few moments of my day discussing this issue with someone who believes in the importance of determining what is true or not, instead of merely going with the flow.
While secular beliefs can be held for fatuous reasons, religious beliefs are based exclusively on blind faith, which is held up by religious persons as a virtue (understandably, since they can provide no actual evidence for their beliefs). This is expressly stated in the Gospel of John, when Thomas refuses to believe Jesus has risen from the dead without proof. Proof is provided and Thomas accepts it. Jesus then chides him: “Thou hast seen and have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
I see nothing virtuous or wise about taking things on faith, and the pernicious effects of doing so are legion. None of the atrocities of the 20th century occurred because people refused to believe something based upon too little evidence.
Not being able to disprove something doesn’t make it true. I can’t disprove the existence of fairies, but that doesn’t make it any more likely that they exist. Lacking any positive evidence for their position (which otherwise sensible people demand for everything else in life), apologists like C.S. Lewis invent rationalizations to justify the things they wanted to believe in the first place, which were in turn handed down to them from authoritarian institutions that used to enforce these dogmas through threats, torture, and murder, until secular laws stopped them from doing so. The ontological argument is a perfect example of this sort of sophistry. Like all apologetic arguments, it is nothing more than an exercise in wordplay that attains its conclusion without incorporating one single piece of empirical data from the real world.
While I am glad that you respect my position, I am afraid I cannot in good conscience return the favor. Beliefs based upon blind faith or verbal legerdemain simply do not compare with beliefs based upon empirical evidence.
Again, sweeping statements concerning complex concepts in stark, simplistic terms ,and several errors in your understanding of religion and philosophy, not to mention that it appears you did not bother to find out before forming an opinion that C. S. Lewis was originally an Atheist and was later convinced of Christianity, not trying to justify something he had always believed…but you know what, we have likely spent too long discussing something other than the movie review, so let’s close the discussion. You have presented your views, I have presented mine; both of us have arguments that support our beliefs, and at this point at least, neither of us is going to change the other’s view. At this point further discourse on this particular subject would be redundant.
If I may point something about how you present your arguments without offending you, it is considered professional and mature in higher thinking to respect other positions – but, please, don’t take my word for it. Since you are so interested in this subject, it appears likely that you are already either enrolled in some line of study that involves courses in critical thinking or you have read extensively in the field on your own. In either case, I will not be the only person who tells you that mutual respect is the most productive and professional way to discourse on such subjects, and hopefully the next person who tells you this will be one whose views align more to your own.
Thank you for your comments. This is the first “rabbit trail” I’ve been on since discovering this site and it was fun. I hope this conversation has been as fruitful for you as it has been for me – I love putting what I’ve learned in college into practice, and frankly, that is why I enjoy this site so much. I love to evaluate the reviews and consider whether the evaluations of the movies are true. Such great brain exercise.
What I don’t understand is that it would make sense if the “Misunderstanding” conflict they put in all these romance movies was that she found the “Boys Gone Wild” DVDs he hid and she called him out for it as being a freaky jerkoff rapist. Instead she knew and was okay with it?
Ugh! Very unrealistic and this is coming from a christian woman herself DX
Yes, she HAD to know that was away in his past.
Now he can’t even be in the same room with a woman, and while we’re on that…how presumptuous of him to immediately assume he “has a shot” with this woman that might lead to sex, just because they’re both currently single and within the same general age range.
Can’t he just have a normal visit with a woman who he finds attractive without creating that weird expectation of sex or infidelity?
It almost feels like the mentality of the people making this film is permanently stuck in their teens. Mature people of opposing genders can exist in the same room without defaulting to the inability to stop humping like rabbits!
Here, here! I find this movie unforgivably awful, as a film enthusiast, a Christian and a human being.
If a movie can be arrogant, then this movie most certainly is.
There are no words for who aggravating this film is
Movies like these frighten me more then blood covered zombies and aliens, because those are obvious flights of fantasy, while people who let their faith make them this self-righteous and behave this strangely live among us and are a growing segment of the population.
Holy shit, this movie looks downright awful. I thought Christian Grey was an abusive sociopath; this guy seemed one bad day away from skinning that girl alive and wearing her hide.
Usually the Snob as a character exaggerates the badness of movies quite a lot, but in this case the movie really is completely f***ed up in numerous ways.
If on a first date the first thing your date does is to shove a religious book on dating in your face, that really is disturbing. I would end that date right there. That’s not dating. That’s… just wrong in all kinds of ways.
12:03 – You don’t seduce Kirk Cameron with hot chocolate, you do it with an empty mug which he pretends to drink from unconvincingly.
Jesus, Snob, this is the most livid I have seen you in a review. Did the director murder your cat?
Old Fashioned is a fitting title for the movie, you’ll need to drink a lot of them to get through this movie. The alternate title could be Fifty Shades of What the Hell did I Just Watch.
This Fundie Christian Movie shows sexism on both sides, Clay’s chivalry is positive sexism, his DJ friend is negative sexism. Its practically oozing with the Freudian theme of the Madonna-Whore Complex.
Clay is that sanctimonious teen from that Rock Music film all grown up.
Okay…I’m not gonna write an essay on how awful I find this film…but here are two “pet peeves”:
1. Going out of your way to avoid – ever – being alone with a woman implies that either she has this super ability to corrupt you against your will or that you hold your own convictions about premarital sex at so little value that you are gonna toss them away at the first sign of interest with someone you barely know, not to mention that the issue of her consent in having/not having sex with a near stranger never comes up. This is not respect. Respect is not treating members of the opposite gender like a corrupting influence. Respect is treating them like people.
2. If you are a person with deeply held, publicly known religious convictions, either your friend will be courteous to tell you beforehand that there will be a stripper at the party, or you will use the good sense that God gave you and ask when you receive the invitation if there will be strippers at the bachelor party. If the answer is yes, politely decline. No public scene, no embarrassing yourself or your friends, no friendships in jeopardy.
What was this director thinking?
Your point #1: You articulated exactly what I was thinking way better then I did in my comment.
The presumptuous arrogance on his part, and lack of respect for the woman made me cringe.
Presumptuous is these guys’ middle name. Their whole schtick amounts to telling other people: “You’re Doing It Wrong!”
Thank you, Chicken Puppet. I read your comments and thought you raised some good points too.
In real life, this guy would have no problem making sure he was never alone with a woman because every woman he knew would give him a wide berth.
Only in the warped minds of fundamentalist Christians is this movie anything but creepy and disgusting. The bachelor party scene perfectly sums up everything wrong with many Christians- they’ve deluded themselves into feeling like noble, pious, oppressed martyrs while actually acting like sanctimonious, selfish bullies who expect everyone to be exactly like them.
“Not Sarah”
Made me chuckle.
This is a movie about a woman who leaves a relationship with a guy who breaks her wrist because he doesn’t like her nail polish and then immediately dives in to a relationship with a controlling religious fanatic who immediately begins training her to be a good wife. That’s not a love story, that’s the beginning of a tragic cycle of abuse.
Also what I’ve gathered form this and from reading the Twilight series (yes, I read it) religious people think that a healthy relationship consists of the man treating the woman like a child and only allowing her to make her own decisions when it comes to insignificant things, because HE know’s what’s best for her, and constantly using passive aggressive manipulation to make her feel like shit.
Probably because their own Bible says that’s how it should be.
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” Ephesians 5:22-24
Twilight is Mormon, which is actually very different than Christian (most orthodox Christians consider it a cult). I don’t have as full an understanding of Mormonism as I should, so I can’t speak to how directly it influenced the writning of Twilight. This movie and Christianity on the other hand…
Pulling that verse (Eph. 5:22-24) out of context is not a good way to interpret it…which from watching this review I wonder if that’s exactly what the director did. One of my frustrations with many people who call themselves Christians is that they have little or no understanding of the very Bible they are supposed to follow. Do you think that anyone who worked on this film had any clue that the first church in Europe was a group of women, and that, in general, the first early believers in Christianity were women? They had astounding influence on the development of the early church, so much so that the Romans perceived Christianity to be largely a woman’s religion…not a man’s. Although women largely had a different role in society at the time of the writing of the New Testament, NT teaching clearly states that men and women are equals before God, who is not concerned with the petty tyrannies of chauvinists.
So, yeah, this guy is selling his personal problematic gender politics under the guise of “Christianity,” but I am certainly not buying.
I’m not sure how else that verse COULD be interpreted. It seems very straightforward to me: women are to treat their husband as if he were God and obey him without question in all things, as they would God. That verse and others were repeatedly quoted with authority as arguments against women’s suffrage.
Even assuming that is not what the verse means (and on the surface of it the meaning seems quite plain), I would really think that an all-wise, all-knowing God would be able to present His word to people in a form that could be not so easily misinterpreted in ways contrary to His wishes.
Wrong, but nice try.
No, REAL religious people don’t think this way. The only “religious” people who do are people who don’t believe in God, they believe they ARE God.
And keep in mind the Bible is full of mistranslations and serious editing. Did you know before some women hating monks came about God was referred to as BOTH the Mother and the Father?
Anytime God was creating/rewarding that was God’s feminine energy – therefore God The Mother created Earth, Eden, etc.
Anytime God was destructive/punishing that was God’s masculine energy. God The Father destroyed Sodom. God The Father caused the Flood.
I have not heard of the feminine/masculine energy theory, but it sounds like an interesting one and once I am a little less overwhelmed by homework I may take a look at it.
I don’t know about heavy editing, per se – it would depend a lot on which Greek text was used for translation (I personally favor the majority text, as it has been messed with the least, but that is a matter of opinion), which there are entire books on, but I know I have some issues with translation errors! But what bugs me even more is how word definitions change over the centuries. Did you know the Greek noun that we translate as “faith” (pistis) is derived from the verb for “to convince by argument”(pisteuo)?
Did you know that “faith” actually means “to convince by argument?” I didn’t for a long time, but it makes sense. For example, Hebrews 11:1 ACTUALLY means “to convince by argument is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I love the Bible because it encourages me to use my brain and “search for myself whether these things be true.” …I think I just had a religious geek fan moment. Wow, that’s more powerful than a Trekkie geek fan moment 😉
I confess that I have a chuckle whenever someone uses the term “blind faith” as it technically means “to blindly convince by argument” which is really ridiculous and a logical inconsistency, so I try not to directly bring it up when discussing faith with someone unless I get the sense that they won’t be embarrassed for saying something so silly. I’m sympathetic to embarrassment because I have experienced it. Because I have said dumb things too.
Anyways…thanks for your thoughts and support. I enjoy talking about these things way too much, and I love meeting people who can show me a perspective I haven’t thought about before.
This movie seems indefensibly bad, but trust me, there are plenty of atheists out there who openly mock faith and scripture. Including, yes, singling out bible passages to laugh at.
Someone please tell me that people told the dude “They only clapped because they were glad it was over and not because they thought it was good.”
He just probably said they clapped for people to believe that the movie was great with audiences but don’t b fooled by it they probably didn’t clapped and were like brad in his midnight screening depressed as f…….
Movie define the word “Chivalry” which clearly you don’t know.
I rather Edmund Leighton’s fabulous great art paintings for five straight hours than watch this unromantic tripe, this assmuncher refuses to even touch a woman in a nice romantic way in a fucking or “unfucking” romance movie? that’s like the cardinal Christian approved and encouraged rule of any romance media.
This movie makes me cry in rage.
Well makes me cry in anger and sadness, and my own sadness of still being single, hell I could only wish right now I could compliment a woman on her beauty in a rather nice, sweet, equalized, and chivalrous way, you know treat her like a freaking equal human being and we make sweet love to each other without hurting each other in any way. Thank goodness or God I’m just watching your critical review version of this film so bad it looks like it was made by the Devil’s Devil, Satan’s Satan (You know the Devil who makes and does so evily when the original Devil is not being evil enough) disguised as a Christian Purity production or that fucked-up Westboro Baptist Church.
This film is eviiiiiillllllll!
I think the Joker and Harley Quinn made this movie.