MovieChat Forums > The Way Way Back (2013) Discussion > sexist and overrated and just not funny,...

sexist and overrated and just not funny, period

posted 10 years ago by calvintoronto
47 replies | jump to latest

Haven't we seen this all before? A kid who is withdrawn because of family problems meets a few people who take inexplicable interest in him, with the result that he comes out of his shell.

First, it's the guy at the water park, who appears to make the sullen kid his project. (I would have given up on the kid after the first non-conversation.) Then, the cute next-door neighbour, no doubt meant to contrast the superficiality of her friends, presumably sees a wounded fellow traveler, and she proves to be right, because, hey, we all want to be understood, right?

The worst part of it all occurs at the waterslide. The kid is instructed on how to hold people up (mostly women) so that they can be oogled. And the scene goes on. And on. And on. And on. And uncomfortably on. When the kid begins to come out of his shell, he does the same thing. Hey! Way to go, older guys! Give the kid a Life Lesson by showing him that women are meant to be objectified! Yeah! Make the world a better place! Right on!

I know that protagonists don't have to be perfect or likeable. But this was one summer vacation I sure wouldn't want to be on, what with that sourpuss around.

Alison Janney was very good, as usual. But so good that it was like she walked in from another, more interesting, more funny movie.

[–] gentelg 10 years ago

It looks like Trent just wrote a review for the film

[–] GSmith9072 10 years ago

It looks like Trent just wrote a review for the film

Then Trent is right.

BUGS

[–] nuttypunkrock 10 years ago

So you wasted your time watching the film then wasted even more of your time complaining about it. Well done

[–] calvintoronto 10 years ago

Glad you spent the time reading the review! Great that you could also contribute something constructive to the conversation!!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Roseblossom-1 10 years ago

Some situations & emotions are timeless, and I suspect one reason similar movies keep getting made over & over is because of disappointment.

Someone rolls their eyes at the stupid scenes, then decides to try and make a better movie.

We actually enjoyed the movie until that repellent waterslide scene; we all looked at each other in disbelief and one guy said "are we back in the '80s at Porky's?"

Guys do bond over looking at sexy females, but we wish the moviemakers could've found a better way to show it than having previously sympathetic characters turn into manipulative creepers.

.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

I agree. That is one big reason why this movie is just in the good (seven out of 10) category for me instead of being something great.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

[–] slickr12345 10 years ago

Its not objectifying to look woman's gorgeous buts, its nature, unless you are gay you can't help but look.

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

Actually, it is. That's the exact definition of what objectification IS.

And we are not animals subject to instinct. We're humans and can actually make a CHOICE of whether or not to objectify someone.

[–] SharpWalkers 9 years ago

Objectification is the treatment of a person as an object. Looking at/admiring someone's behind absolutely is NOT reducing that person's entire being to an object with nothing more to it, or a tool to be used. It IS as simple as: "Gee, that girl (or man(A.k.a. A PERSON)) has a nicely shaped rear end".

People throw around words like that too easily, overwhelming, and degrading the impact of ACTUAL issues of objectivication. Same thing with sexism, racism, misogyny, making love to various fruits, etc. etc.. And all that does is do harm to those actual issues. Incredibly tiring.

Was is gratitiously shown in the movie, sure. But good grief, people shouldn't see harm everywhere. These days one couldn't turn their nicely shaped rear ends, without giving others a cause to go on a warpath.

[–] crissttigaldames 9 years ago

Yeah, people are overreacting. It wasn't such a big deal.

[–] Rena_Mahone 10 years ago

I don't see what is "sexist" about this movie, but I do agree on the rest, it's unfunny, boring and overrated.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

Sexist? Guys ogling women is as old as time itself, and especially in the pseudo-1984 in which this movie is kind of set, this isn't creepy at all. I wish I had a job like this in 1984 when I was about this kid's age.

In fact, I did - I worked at a day camp in 1983. And I ogled all the hot girls in their bathing suits every single day. Greatest job ever, even though I made only about $400 for the entire summer. Sexist? No, just normal teenaged male behavior.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] GSmith9072 10 years ago

It's not about what's 'normal' (although there are less douchy people out there, you just aren't one of them), it's about this behavior being shown as endearing.

BUGS

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

Gee, thanks! I appreciate your opinion!

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

I am a married middle-aged guy who ogles younger women myself. But that's different from abusing your power as a lifeguard to make them display themselves for you. Ggo ahead and look at them as they go about their normal business; but what was done at the water park crossed a line. I actually think it's wrong to say that the Sam Rockwell character has any justification for taking a posture of moral superiority over the Steve Carell character.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

"abusing your power as a lifeguard" - are you serious? First off, the kid isn't a lifeguard. A lifeguard receives training and actually saves people's lives. This kid has got a minimum wage job sitting in a chair all day. NOT a lifeguard.

Second, and more to your point, the kid has got no power. Nobody listens to him anyway. Anyone who wants to go instead of waiting just goes - just like those three kids who went at the same time and get stuck. If she doesn't like being ogled, she can just go down the slide whenever she feels like it.

And finally, and most importantly, I'm sorry I have to trot out this line, but for this scene at least, IT'S JUST A MOVIE. Yeah, I went there. Do you really think that a water park would allow the fourth big kid to go in and break up the pile of three kids that got stuck in the tube? Can you possibly imagine the liability? Can you possibly imagine the bad example that would set to everyone else waiting in the line who would then go ahead and try the "three-at-a-time" stunt, knowing that the fourth of their buddies could then free them? It would be madness and mayhem. Parks get shut down over such stuff.

But not in this movie. Because IT'S JUST A MOVIE.

As for relative moral superiorities here, yeah, Rockwell is still far superior to Carell. So what that Rockwell did this and encouraged this? He was trying to break this kid out of his shell. Meanwhile, Carell is off cheating on the kid's mom and being an all-round a$$hole. I'd take a world filled with Rockwells over a world filled with Carells any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

The "for this scene at least" is a key admission. One of the reasons a lot of people tout this movie is for its realism/naturalism. And that to me is its strongest point by far, which is why when you reminded me about the other scene with the three kids stuck in the tube, I remembered how stupid and out of place that scene felt (it wasn't even filmed well, in a way that made it look like they were really stuck--another reason it should have been dumped on the editing room floor once they filmed it, even if it seemed like an interesting idea on paper).

If you're not a fan of this movie for its low key, naturalistic drama, then I'm not sure what the selling point of it is. There is only moderate conflict, no real action, no sex, relatively little comedy.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

"for this scene at least" - huh? I just reread my posts and yours and I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I AM a fan of this movie. I like it a lot. Like you said, it is natural. It's sweet. The main kid is good and reminds me a helluva lot of myself at that age - completely shy and awkward. And totally rockin' out on the Walkman to REO, or whatever other lameass band you care to mention.

The film is also weird in that it tries to be both in 1984 and in 2013 at the same time. Sam Rockwell is great - he plays his usual fun but dirtbaggy character. Again, the movie isn't laugh out loud funny, but it's fun. The blonde chick with the fivehead is also really good, and represents the fantasy girl that I totally would have wanted to get with when I was that age back then as well. So what's not to like?

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

It was right out of your post that I replied to: "for this scene at least, IT'S JUST A MOVIE." And my point was that the strength of the movie is its realism. You seem to think I don't like the movie, but I do. I actually admire its realism and non-sensationalism that set it apart from teenage summer type movies...except for those two parts involving the slide.

ETA: I suppose it could well be realistic for park employees to abuse their authority that way. But then they are the douches, more than Trent; and since those characters were set up to be the ones the audience roots for, I find that discomfiting.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

[–] Wuchak (8135) 3 years ago

it could well be realistic for park employees to abuse their authority that way. But then they are the douches, more than Trent; and since those characters were set up to be the ones the audience roots for, I find that discomfiting.

No, it shows that they're red-blooded males; and males appreciate feminine beauty. There's a world of difference between admiring beauty for a couple seconds and being a cheater like Trent. What makes it worse for Trent's nature is that it was yet the beginning of his relationship with Pam. If this is how he's going to behave in the early months of a committed relationship, how's he going to be in five years?

Furthermore, the girl in the yellow bikini obviously wanted to show her beauty and enjoyed being appreciated.

However, I agree that it was inappropriate to hold her up (or any female) for the purpose of ogling her which, as you point out, is an abuse of power. It smacked of pervy manipulation and painted Roddy (Nat Faxon) & Trent in a questionable light, especially since Duncan later follows the bad example. There was a better way to make the same point -- that, when it came down to it, Roddy & Trent were just dudes who like to look at beautiful females -- without having them abuse their authority and manipulate certain women.

[–] purpleblows 10 years ago

As a woman myself I also disliked this part it wasn't funny and I wasn't smiling. That aside I enjoyed the film. But it's true they for most movies female viewers are forced to go thru uncomfortable scenes such as this one for the sake of male enjoyment and this is where the sexist comes in so I understand your point.

[–] chilone 10 years ago

As a woman myself I also disliked this part it wasn't funny and I wasn't smiling.

This is a typical response from women that never have been and never will be oogled.

Now go ahead and lie... I mean tell me how many guy's tongues you step on as you walk by.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] purpleblows 10 years ago

I'm not going to go ahead with anything here you can believe what you want

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

Oh, dear. I'm sure she's VERY upset that she'll never be objectified! She's probably crying into her beer right now that she won't be treated like a piece of meat on display.

[–] kidzbpq 10 years ago

What you ignorantly and pretentiously call "sexist" is billions of years of evolution at work.

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

*buzzz* Wrong. If anything, it's DE-evolution. Objectifying someone is sexist. Period.
Stop trying to rationalize your Neandertal-like behavior.