MovieChat Forums > The Untouchables (1987) Discussion > Hated the baby carriage sequence

Hated the baby carriage sequence

posted 11 years ago by starmarker
17 replies | jump to latest

I had good memories of this movie and watched it again last night on cable. It was a disappointment for sure. One part that stood out: The baby carriage sequence was so bogus and overdone it was ridiculous. The way the mother "struggled" for such a ridiculously long time to pull the carriage up the stairs seemed so phony and manipulative. And once the carriage starts heading back down, the mother apparently can't move her legs anymore. Meanwhile the music has to hammer us over the head with the sound of a music box in case we don't get that IT'S A BABY IN THERE, OH NO! Pretty much the only decent part of the whole movie was Connery's performance.

[–] ellandroad_allstars 11 years ago

The movie is quite poor but this scene, along with Connery and Garcia first meeting at the shooting range, I felt were both quite good. But yes the mother is odd, though she might just be in a panic and so her body has forgotten how to work

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denham 11 years ago

Ah, The Naked Gun, happy days... but anyways, I'm Brian De Palma*, and I'm one of Hollywood's top directors - you may have seen some of my films, which are subtly reminiscent of the work of that guy Albert Hancock, but I think you'll agree that mine are rather better. In 'The Untouchables' I made a super-subtle reference to the classic movie 'Battleship Galactica' by Sergei Einstein (great guy), but it's so fleeting that blink and you'll miss it!

* Legal disclaimer: no, I'm not.

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] MrJingles521 11 years ago

Well, have you seen the opening to Naked Gun 33 1/3?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBG5AFmyigw

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

It's in slow motion you simpleton.

The reason the music was so obvious was because it was a homage to the serial of the 60s.

GO away.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

[–] ElMaruecan82 10 years ago

I have a baby so believe me, anyone would struggle to pull carriage up the stairs and they had heavier models back then.

Darth Vader is scary and I [love4] The Godfather

[–] bradford-1 10 years ago

Jesus, doesn't ANYONE know anything about film history? If you did, you'd have known that DePalma and company were doing an hommage to a scene in Eisenstein's BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925). A group of dismounted Cossacks start marching down a steep flight of outdoor stairs toward a group of protesting civilians, women and children included. The Cossacks start fire into the crowd, causing chaos. A woman with her baby in a stroller tries to run back down the steps, is shot and the stroller rolls down the steps as bodies and bullets fly around it. Seeing the carnage on land, sailors who have mutinied on the Potemkin fire its guns at the Cossacks (Gee, remember those sailors in the train station in UNTOUCHABLES?) Of course, DePalma uses slow motion to prolong the action, but film lovers got the point.
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] janedoe3010 9 years ago

Just because he's paying homage doesn't mean he was effective in this film OR that people had to like it. I'm always baffled by people who sound like they are taking personal offense over critique of an artist's work.

[–] bornskeptic 10 years ago

The train station scene is vintage De Palma. He never misses an opportunity to show off and it can detract form the effectiveness of a scene, like this one. Watching a Brain De Palma movie...you never forget you are watching a movie.
Bradford-1 calling out people for missing the relation between that scene and the Battleship Potemkin scene only reinforces my argument.
Yes Bradford, most film lovers are very familiar with the Odessa Steps sequence. But who gives a crap? Seems De Palma had to shoehorn this into his movie just for the hell of it. But ultimately it's of little use to the casual movie goer who just wants to be entertained by what's on the screen in front of him. Not be taken to film class.

[–] bradford-1 10 years ago

So why wouldn't the "casual movie goer" not be entertained by UNTOUCHABLES, either in part or the whole? I hadn't even seen POTEMKIN when I first saw UNTOUCHABLES back in '87. Anyway, I was responding to some of the threads I read here. I guess I'm just an old film curmudgeon.

May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

Shoe-horned or not, that sequence is done so well that it effectively builds tension... at least to people who aren't insecure, bitter idiots that can't allow a goddamn movie to make them feel something.

[–] dyahrmarkt 9 years ago

"...at least to people who aren't insecure, bitter idiots that can't allow a goddamn movie to make them feel something."

***Woah, easy there tiger. We all pay our money, we buy our ticket, we rent the DVD, we then absolutely reserve the right to criticize pretentiousness in film. I myself do like the Potemkin shout-out, but understand fully the criticisms leveled at the film in general. Such people are not insecure, bitter idiots - *if* their argument stays relevant and doesn't resort to - heh heh - ad hominem attacks.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ibbi 9 years ago

It does fall a part a little bit once the shooting starts, but the drawn out build up is fantastic.

____
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2EI48Qa84&t=1m38s

[–] fanaticita 9 years ago

As soon as I saw that scene with the baby carriage I immediately thought, "Aha! A homage to Battleship Potemkin!" I see others made the connection too. There certainly was a lot of tension in the Untouchables scene, although I thought it was a bit drawn out.