LOL. Vice needs to learn not to mess with Prince or his fans

.

Minnesota Public Radio is on top of it now, too: "Thoughts and prayers this afternoon go out to the social media manager of Vice, who bit the bullet and posted this tweet today "does Purple Rain Actually Suck?"

.

I might remind Vice.com that Roger Ebert named Purple Rain (the film) to his top ten list for 1984.

.

"SPEAK NO ILL OF PRINCE"

http://blogs.mprnews.org/...of-prince/

.

I saw this, and while I'm not in the "Prince is beyond criticism" camp, and I do think Purple Rain has its flaws, it's worth noting that a: Vice was gushing about the 8th Fast and the Furious movie this week; and b: the tweeter who wrote that Vice is "letting their white hipster show" is so right - it's always easy to tell a casual Prince fan/hater from someone who gives measured criticism. Reminds me of the time someone on Vice wrote that Bad Brains invented funk metal without mentioning Funkadelic or, for that matter, Jimi Hendrix. "Does Vice actually suck?"

eh, this is vice. They're provocative, and this is a part of a series: "Does It Suck? takes a deeper look at pop cultural artifacts previously adored, unjustly hated, or altogether forgotten, reopening the book on topics that time left behind."

-

the article's also about the movie itself, not the soundtrack, and there's a legit case that from a pure cinematic perspective the movie may have some real weaknesses

what is Vice?

SoulAlive said:

laytonian said:

SoulAlive said:

what is Vice?

. Go to Vice.com and take a look. Click on About. .

I guess this makes a point...who needs to google Prince?

It's a fair article. I watched it again recently and it hasn't aged well. The performance segments are just stunning but...the rest really is awful. And Prince really is the worst celluloid kisser ever.

Apparently, it's more about the movie. And yeah, the movie isn't a cinematic treasure by any stretch.

Ha, I saw this posted somewhere but there were no comments or reactions to it so I thought it was just some kid trolling and everybody just ignored it.

Purple Rain is extremely amatuer and that is both its charm and its weakness. Its charming because at times, its quirky and authentic. I kind of like the scene when Prince is talking to the puppets in his head. I think its intentionally hilarious. I like the real locals, the look of the 'actors'..etc.

But, when you have a cast almost entirely consisting of amateurs, then you definitely need a director with a great deal of experience to harness the truth from their performances. that doesn't exist here. The script is also a problem because The Kid is written to be far too serious and assholey through most of the plot and even worst Apolonia's character is a total doormat. With a fiery self-assured actress and better writing for both P and his female counterpoint (more humor less emotional manipulation) than the acting would have naturally been at least a bit better.

Prince as an actor in this film is hit and miss. his lame spin around "Where are you Motherfucker", his surliness, his stiff delivery at times---all reveal his lack of experience. But his believable conversation with his father (who is actually played by a real actor) works. Its an honest scene. When his dad asks him if he has a girlfriend, Prince's sad confirmation that he does...it stuck with me. His delivery at the end when he dedicates the song to his dad, his crying scene after witnessing his dad attempt suicide...I believed him.

Also there is Jerome and MOrris who are fine. But Jerome was kind of awful in his crying scene in UTCM...I guess he kind of proves that comedy acting isn't always harder than dramatic acting. ..LOL.

Also about P's acting, his love scenes are surprisingly weak in films compared to videos and on stage. I guess he was just too freaky to be a conventional romantic lead in films. Maybe, that is why he has better chemistry with his sugar momma in UTCM than with his leading lady. Also, I liked his comedic chemistry with Jerome in UTCM. THat's a film that would have been much better as a bromance.

if it wasnt for the music and performances ..no one would give it a second thought.

The movie was 30 some years ago. Times and movies are a lot more sophisticated these days. Look at Elvis' old movies. With each era the technology gets a whole lot better.

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not. But some of the best films were made in the 80's...Some of Prince's favorites were the brilliant films Amadeus and EraserHead.

I would argue that older films are sometimes even more sophisticated and well-crafted than many films today. Audiences however were better at the willing suspension of disbelief. We are cynical as hell these days (after the special effects and spectacle of a film wears off). Even decent actors are considered awful actors if they are not Daniel Day-Lewis-level good. It only takes watching five minutes of porn star acting to see how difficult even decent acting can be.

THat all being said, film spectacle and editing can disguise amatuer acting much more effectively these days than in the 1980's.

PennyPurple said:

The movie was 30 some years ago. Times and movies are a lot more sophisticated these days. Look at Elvis' old movies. With each era the technology gets a whole lot better.

[Edited 3/13/17 18:40pm]

[Edited 3/13/17 18:41pm]

[Edited 3/13/17 18:44pm]

Just read the article - overall pretty fair piece, but with a clickbait title. It's provocative enough to get people to read it even though there have been tons of pieces written about the movie over the last year.

.

I like that he had some positive stuff to say about 'Cherry Moon.'

.

I've realized that on a personal level I have almost zero objectivity when juding Prince's movies, especially PR. When people say his acting sucks in that movie, I don't agree. I don't personally feel he has a moment in the film that isn't believable and sincere. But I can't even begin to separate that film from my feelings as a fan.

purplerabbithole said:

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not. But some of the best films were made in the 80's...Some of Prince's favorites were the brilliant films Amadeus and EraserHead.

I would argue that older films are sometimes even more sophisticated and well-crafted than many films today. Audiences however were better at the willing suspension of disbelief. We are cynical as hell these days (after the special effects and spectacle of a film wears off). Even decent actors are considered awful actors if they are not Daniel Day-Lewis-level good. It only takes watching five minutes of porn star acting to see how difficult even decent acting can be.

THat all being said, film spectacle and editing can disguise amatuer acting much more effectively these days than in the 1980's.

.

Well said, totally agree.

.

Every era has its classics. Every era has its dross. And for every era there will be people who eternally argue which films fit into which category.

.

In other words they took the click bait.

.

If you look at other films released by the rock "giants" of the '80s, Prince's films (flawed as they may be) stand head and shoulders above everything else.

Shanghai Surprise (Madonna)?
Moonwalker or whatever that MJ thing was.

Even Saturday Night Fever, 7 years before PR, looks horrendously dated AND its story is equally lame. The star dances ONLY; does not sing nor play instruments.

I'll take PR any time, as a representation of its era.

homesquid said:

In other words they took the click bait.

.

Or just read the headline.

The article itself was poorly-written, like the old internet Skitt's Law of criticism.

purplerabbithole said:

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not.

.

Alien is from 1979 and cost $9-$10 million to make.

laytonian said:

.

If you look at other films released by the rock "giants" of the '80s, Prince's films (flawed as they may be) stand head and shoulders above everything else.

Shanghai Surprise (Madonna)?
Moonwalker or whatever that MJ thing was.

Even Saturday Night Fever, 7 years before PR, looks horrendously dated AND its story is equally lame. The star dances ONLY; does not sing nor play instruments.

I'll take PR any time, as a representation of its era.

Saturday Night Fever is a classic movie.It brilliantly captures that whole era (late 70s) and the soundtrack is incredible.I think John Travolta even got a Best Actor Oscar nomination for that role.Purple Rain is a great film,but let's be honest....it's amateurish compared to a masterpiece like Saturday Night Fever.

Purple Rain grew on me, and I like it.

Graffiti Bridge, on the other hand... I don't think anyone can really defend that film...

purplerabbithole said:

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not. But some of the best films were made in the 80's...Some of Prince's favorites were the brilliant films Amadeus and EraserHead.

I would argue that older films are sometimes even more sophisticated and well-crafted than many films today. Audiences however were better at the willing suspension of disbelief. We are cynical as hell these days (after the special effects and spectacle of a film wears off). Even decent actors are considered awful actors if they are not Daniel Day-Lewis-level good. It only takes watching five minutes of porn star acting to see how difficult even decent acting can be.

THat all being said, film spectacle and editing can disguise amatuer acting much more effectively these days than in the 1980's.

PennyPurple said:

The movie was 30 some years ago. Times and movies are a lot more sophisticated these days. Look at Elvis' old movies. With each era the technology gets a whole lot better.

[Edited 3/13/17 18:40pm]

[Edited 3/13/17 18:41pm]

[Edited 3/13/17 18:44pm]

Wait, Prince was a fan of Eraserhead? Did he ever speak much about it, I've never heard this before.

RaspBerryGirlFriend said:

purplerabbithole said:

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not. But some of the best films were made in the 80's...Some of Prince's favorites were the brilliant films Amadeus and EraserHead.

I would argue that older films are sometimes even more sophisticated and well-crafted than many films today. Audiences however were better at the willing suspension of disbelief. We are cynical as hell these days (after the special effects and spectacle of a film wears off). Even decent actors are considered awful actors if they are not Daniel Day-Lewis-level good. It only takes watching five minutes of porn star acting to see how difficult even decent acting can be.

THat all being said, film spectacle and editing can disguise amatuer acting much more effectively these days than in the 1980's.

[Edited 3/13/17 18:40pm]

[Edited 3/13/17 18:41pm]

[Edited 3/13/17 18:44pm]

Wait, Prince was a fan of Eraserhead? Did he ever speak much about it, I've never heard this before.

Yes, according to Susan Rogers in a recent podcast. I’m a huge Lynch fan, but I found it surprising – seems a long way from the kind of films that Prince made.

CAL3 said:

purplerabbithole said:

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not. But some of the best films were made in the 80's...Some of Prince's favorites were the brilliant films Amadeus and EraserHead.

I would argue that older films are sometimes even more sophisticated and well-crafted than many films today. Audiences however were better at the willing suspension of disbelief. We are cynical as hell these days (after the special effects and spectacle of a film wears off). Even decent actors are considered awful actors if they are not Daniel Day-Lewis-level good. It only takes watching five minutes of porn star acting to see how difficult even decent acting can be.

THat all being said, film spectacle and editing can disguise amatuer acting much more effectively these days than in the 1980's.

.

Well said, totally agree.

.

Every era has its classics. Every era has its dross. And for every era there will be people who eternally argue which films fit into which category.

.

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Metropolis (1927)

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

On average, low budget films are usually shitty. There are exceptions obviously. But generally the low budget films that are decent are made by film students and aspiring and/or established actors rather than managers pretending to be directors and musicians dabbling in acting.

BartVanHemelen said:

purplerabbithole said:

MOvies were sophisticated in the 80's as well. Low budget first-time films were not.

.

Alien is from 1979 and cost $9-$10 million to make.

purplerabbithole said:

On average, low budget films are usually shitty. There are exceptions obviously. But generally the low budget films that are decent are made by film students and aspiring and/or established actors rather than managers pretending to be directors and musicians dabbling in acting.

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Alien is from 1979 and cost $9-$10 million to make.

.

That is an indefensible statement. Even allowing for "exceptions," it is a ridiculous statement.

.

As ridiculous as saying "On average, big budget films are usually awesome."

.