Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The Crying Game Reaction! (Patreon)

Published:
2024-02-01 20:00:08
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Files

The Crying Game (1992)

Download Edit (3.7 GB) Edited Reaction Alongside the regular multi-part full, you now have the option of watching an edited version of the full movie reaction with 10-15mins

Comments

Ryan

I was 8 years old when this movie came out, so that created a quite odd time where everyone was talking about this huge controversial movie, and the only thing my parents would tell my brother and I about it was "That isn't for you." And in those days before widespread Internet use, I spent years with the only clue to what the movie was about being the Seinfeld episode where George sees his moob-afflicted father shirtless and says "I was throwing up all night. It's my own personal Crying Game!" (and trust me, it's not lost on me that my parents were perfectly fine with letting me see every bit of that show as it aired, masturbation contest and all). So by the time I finally did get to see it, this thing had been built up like mad as a super dirty and violent movie, so imagine my surprise when I got an extremely thoughtful and moving story that's challenging in a whole other way. One thing that especially strikes me is how it seems specially designed for people going in cold like this, where you probably first assume the hostage situation is going to be the whole movie, leaving you adrift when it's wrapped up just half an hour in and wondering what the hell else the rest is about. And that feeling of never having a grasp of where things are going stays with you for the rest of the movie, most of all in its most famous plot twist. That full frontal shot would still be reasonably shocking in a movie made now, so just imagine the reaction it got in 1992. The movie has gotten dinged a bit in more recent years for its inevitably dated view of trans issues, but I find this all holds up incredibly well, especially since you'd have to go to the Trill from Star Trek to see anything close to this sympathetic and normalized a portrayal of it at the time. And I'm also perfectly fine with the casting of cis man Jaye Davidson in the role, both because he's still a member of the LGBT community (specifically the G) and due to the way Dil has to spend a significant amount of screentime stuffed back into her dead identity, which I would absolutely not be comfortable putting a genuine trans actress through. This was his first acting role after a career as a fashion designer and model, and he pulls off the highly complex part extremely well (certainly the Oscars thought so, which unfortunately involved spoiling the big twist by nominating him for Best Supporting ACTOR), but he ended up deciding the movie business wasn't for him and only played one more role as the villain in Stargate before returning to the fashion world. It's also quite interesting that Neil Jordan followed this film with Interview with the Vampire, another famously queer-themed story that his rendition walks right to the edge of plausible deniability with none other than Tom "won't come out of the closet" Cruise himself. Stephen Rea and Forrest Whittaker are also insanely good here, as the whole thing would fall apart if they don't get you fully invested in their bond in the 30 minutes they have to build it. It's pretty neat to compare Rea in this role to him playing a cop who starts questioning the fascist system he's devoted himself to in V for Vendetta; kind of an odd thing to get typecast for but you're good at what you're good at. It's been quite a while since I saw it, and I very much look forward to what a fresh viewpoint can give.

Ryan

Since this seems the most convenient place to put it, I'll also note that Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1 has now been added to Paramount Plus, and it seems they're going to try to gaslight us into forgetting there was ever a "Part 1" in the title. Presumably this is because of how disappointing the film's box office was, which doesn't speak well of how a Part 2 would do so they're just completely changing the eighth film's title. But personally I think it would be hilarious if the next movie is just a totally new story and acts like there's a Dead Reckoning Part 2 that doesn't actually exist. Just a brief conversation in the opening scene with "Good thing you stopped that whole Entity mess, shame (minor character whose actor we can't get back) didn't make it." Oh, and Ilsa shows up halfway through and no one's surprised at all, because that whole explanation was also in DR Part 2 if only you'd cared enough about Part 1 for us to be able to make it.

Thomas Corp

When I saw that this was in the series of nineties films you surprisingly have never seen, my thoughts were, “Actually, that’s not that surprising you haven’t seen The Crying Game.” I’m in the same boat as I only finally just saw this two days ago to prepare for the reaction. I was a year old when this came out. It never was on tv growing up, and I’ve only recently seen it pop up on tv. Mom’s never seen it. Dad, likewise, to my knowledge, never saw it. Not sure if my brother’s ever seen it. I only first became aware of it around college age. The video stores shut down around then, so I couldn’t rent it from that, though I don’t remember ever seeing it there. Nor in the college library, now I think about it, and they had a pretty good collection as a matter of fact. I don’t think it even has a blu-ray release, at least not in the states. Prior to my first start-to-finish viewing, I’ve only ever caught a tiny snippet of The Crying Game once two years ago. I went to the barber and was in the seat almost immediately. This was playing on the tvs during that visit. I realized what it was as I recognized the cast. It must have started shortly before I walked in because watching it this time, I had that “This is where we came in.” moment, checked how long into the film it was, and said, “Oh, so I walked in early in the film that day.” Having finally seen the film, I quite enjoyed it, and I’m glad to see you quite liked it as well, Jess. It was “serving dra-MA!” as you succinctly described. To answer the one question that you asked: It was up for six Oscars including best picture. It won for original screenplay and lost in the other categories which to be fair, there was insanely STRONG competition that year. You mentioned kind of knowing that this was a thriller, same here. I knew that the plot somehow connected to the IRA. In terms of a feel, it’s a similar vibe to Neil Jordan’s other films, of which, I’m quite fond of and recommend Mona Lisa. As mentioned, I knew the cast in advance. Stephen Rea, I’ve seen in other things such as V for Vendetta, he was great in this. He and Forest Whitaker were impeccable in their scenes in the first act, as you observed that you were completely captivated by their scenes. It reminds me that it took too long for Forest to attain A-list status. Miranda Richardson was tremendous as she always is. Miranda was not nominated for this, though she was nominated the same year for the film Damage. Adrian Dunbar was good, and I’ll take anything of Jim Broadbent being delightful as always, here said delightfulness was his turn as the barkeep. Now to the part of the film that most everyone knows about going into it these days. Jaye Davidson was amazing as Dil. As Ryan says, Jaye was nominated for best supporting actor. (Which completely spoils the big twist.) Jaye sadly lost, though again, insanely STRONG competition that year. A big reason most people know about the twist in advance is that throughout the rest of the nineties, said twist was tastelessly parodied many times. One of the most prominent cases was in Ace Ventura, which felt bad even back when I first saw that in 2005, and watching it today, you think, “Jesus Christ, this fucking aged like milk.” It is therefore a pleasant surprise that the film is as nuanced about Dil’s character and plotline as it was. Like you said, I see Ryan commented the same, the film does show its age at spots; I hold a similar view of factoring in awareness back then compared to today. Even then, like you said, Dil is treated by the narrative as a very nuanced, sympathetic woman, and there is a lot of thought and care with her. Yes, it does hurt seeing the initial reaction to Dil allowing herself to be vulnerable, and to the film’s credit, it never claims his reaction was right. Everything you had to say about Dil, her plotline, and character, was very well spoken, Jess. I also loved one, your wanting Fergus to be honest with Dil, and two, your observations when he tries to disguise Dil. Jaye superbly portrayed Dil’s heartbreak and her trauma in that scene. Even if Fergus is doing it for her safety, it would still hurt, and I like the film acknowledging that. Your own thoughts, as I said, I loved, particularly when you were more comfortable when you learned why Fergus was doing it. And I stand by your assertion of violence occurring if you were out in public, and some man started wiping off your makeup. I wouldn’t doubt it, considering I remember you said in a Star Trek reaction that you’d claw a man’s eyes out if he tried to undo any work you put into your hair being arranged in some sort of up-do and/or fashionable style. Another small highlight of the reaction was when I anticipated your reaction to Dil chucking the bowl of goldfish out the window. I had a similar reaction, saying, “Wha, no don’t, not the goldfish, come on.” I liked your comment, “What did the goldfish do to you?” I understood everything you had to say both in the reaction, and in your post-reaction thoughts. No apologies are necessary. One, what you said were your immediate gut reactions, and two, you were still processing the film. And as I said, I loved everything you had to say, Jess. Your thoughts and comments were very well spoken. And I enjoyed seeing this film, I’m glad to have finally seen it, and it was most enjoyable sharing it with you, Jess, and I thank you for the terrific reaction.

Dave Ford

I remember screening that as part of the film society I ran at university when it was released back in, well, an age ago - 93 maybe? It was a well regarded film at the time and I don't recall any prurient reaction to it. The 'big reveal' (ahem) was generally kept quiet about as to not spoil the movie by the media at the time. Not even sure of the tabloid press gave it much of a pasting even... I think the reaction at the time was more novelty than shock to be honest.