MovieChat Forums > forlorn_rage > Replies
forlorn_rage's Replies
The Huxtables weren't the first upper class black family. The Jeffersons were. If Bill Cosby is under the impression he made his show the first depiction of a rich black family, he's sadly delusional.
You haven't seen 'Holiday Affair,' have you? Corey is actually quite good at subtly inserting comedy into his performances. Didn't take Hitchcock's direction for that.
[quote]Yeah that's a bit psycho to enjoy watching people burn to death. I did not like that [/quote]
Oh my god, that was a horrible sight to watch... And it wasn't even necessary! I absolutely HATED Daenarys for looking so damn proud watching those soldiers burn to death!
Yes, someone like Cersei is cruel, but at least people acknowledge it and don't try to sugarcoat it! I'm tired of people constantly sucking up to Daenarys when she's spoiled, entitled bitch who just happens to be Mary Sue Squared with plot armour to the nth degree!
[quote] Wow, you can write a lot while managing to say absolutely nothing. [/quote]
Wow, more evidence of you being an arrogant prick. You just did *exactly* what you accused me of doing. Anyway, you had your chance to argue back and failed to come up with any strong evidence for your claims about someone like Joffrey "being capable of love" (ha!). I'm not going to bother to waste anymore time on you.
Point one, you're getting offtopic by talking about book Joffrey. Whereas most (if not all these posts) are referring to Show Joffrey.
Two: while there is a difference between sociopath and psychopath, it's minuscule at best, not "big."
Three: I didn't need to take anymore time to think about what I was going to post to you. I stand by what I said before. There is evidence that (Show) Joffrey is very much a psychopath in the sense:
1. He loves no one, but himself. Even the person he arguably has the strongest relationship with, his mother, he isn't above looking down on or threatening her without batting an eyelash. Whereas if he was a sociopath, he might've at least hesitated or shown some feeling for her now and then- which never did.
2. While not terribly bright, he can be very devious when he needs to be. Such as misleading the crowd into thinking he was going to grant mercy to Ned Stark, when he never had any such intention. Or secretly ordering the killing of his bastard half siblings and making it look as if his mother may been responsible.
Are we talking about the same person here? The same boy who ordered the murders of innocent children because they just happened to be the bastards of his horny, irresponsible lout of a "father," delighted in killing and torturing prostitutes, and got off on showing Sansa her father's head on a spike after viciously humiliating and executing him?
This little bastard you claim is "capable of love"? NO. Joffrey wasn't as bad as Ramsey. But, that does NOT mean he wasn't a vicious bastard, psychopath, and a hideous monster all the same.
[i][–] ninthcentury 2 years ago
I think he's referring to the scene in which the horse takes a spill over a fence, iirc.
Marnie, an experienced horsewoman, also goes down with the horse. This isn't exactly uncommon in cross-country riding, especially if you're going to jump solid fences instead of knock-down jumps like what you see in stadium jumping.
But she gets up and the horse doesn't. Without looking at the leg, not touching or feeling for a broken bone, or having a vet come look at it as any sane person would do, she flies into irrationality and starts screaming for a gun to put it out of its misery, then executes the poor thing when it might just have bowed a tendon.
Now, I get that Marnie is innately hysterical. It's what makes her the nut she is, and what kept me from liking her even a little. But shooting a horse when you think it might have a broken leg, without even looking to see if you're right? That's pathetic.
For the record, one of my mares kicked another mare and brought her to the ground, so I've seen a horse I love in physical pain, but I certainly wasn't ready to execute the poor animal if there had been hope. Am I an experienced horsewoman, yes, but I certainly wouldn't put myself into a vet's role (even though I was a nurse as well) unless the nearest vet had been a hundred miles off.
If someone calls this a plot hole, it really isn't; it's just bad writing.[/i]
I completely agree with you. I only hope that nothing bad actually happened to the horse in real life. And it was purely excellent editing and some special effects that made the horse look hurt.
[i][–] DarrienBlack 5 years ago
Agreed on her being miscast physically but was also surprised that she didn't try to sound like Tippi vocally, Tippi has/had an airy and sexy way of speaking and Sienna didn't even attempt to duplicate it at all.
It's even more noticeable considering how hard Toby Jones tried to become the Hitchcock character.[/i]
Toby Jones is chillingly fantastic! I felt so awful for him that he wasn't even given a decent co-star to
^THIS!!! Toby Jones is chillingly fantastic! I felt so awful for him that he wasn't even given a decent co-star to
Not even 5 minutes passed, I felt like reaching in there, grabbing Miller by thee hair, and literally throwing her out of the movie (and preferably out of a window). How this bimbo keeps getting work is beyond me. Not particularly attractive, intelligent, interesting, and a GROSSLY incompetent "actress" (even that description is too kind for her).
I was reluctant to watch this film anyway b/c I prefer documentaries for real life incidences. I REALLY wish a documentary was made instead of a TV film.
[i][–] stenney 4 years ago
he started work on a script for this right after or even during "Psycho", and offered it to Grace Kelly. when the people of Monaco had a problem with their Princess playing a lying theif, she refused, besides still having an obligation to MGM. this then got shelved after she refused, and Hitch had no other project, so he went and did "The Birds", whisch was his first work with Tippi. after 3 or 4 other possible actresses for this role, Tippi accepted an offer. [/i]
^This makes sense as opposed to what so many others were saying that Grace Kelly was chosen over Tippi Hedren as Marnie.
Considering how obsessed Hitchcock became with Tippi Hedren, it didn't make sense to me that he would make "The Birds" with Hedren, turn back to Grace Kelly knowing it would be in vain, then suddenly (supposedly reluctantly) turn back to Hedren.
Kenny, even though you are not wrong about the time, perception, and the context of the film under which this extremely distasteful scene takes place, one thing overrules everything you have said in your post.
Mark gave his *word* that he would not force Marnie. It's not completely verbalized since it's a 60's film and the code hadn't been entirely abandoned up until this point. But, it is understood between Mark and Marnie what is being said and agreed upon.
Whatever benefit of a doubt we could've given Mark (only b/c of the time period & and before acknowledgment & existence marital rape as a legal concept) is dispelled by the above point. Mark gave his word, then callously *breaks* it.
On top of that, Mark apologizes after pulling off Marnie's nightgown, so he *knows* what he is doing isn't right. But, *still* proceeds to have his way with Marnie even seeing how still, expressionless, shocked & traumatized Marnie. Does he prefer unresponsive, motionless women for a sex partner? Boy, has *he* got issues!
[i] I liked the movie except for a few things.... The constant jabbering of the women. The dialog was too fast and quipped the entire movie. I was not crazy for the ending,,I know it was 1939 but I was proud of her for being strong and showing her daughter a woman can do it on her own. [/i]
Well, you have to remember that is what Mary wanted. Nowadays in a lot movies, characters have to forego wants and needs that seem consistent with the character's development for mostly political and audience agendas. In that situation character and story cease to become character and story and simply become a statement, which should be an addition to the character and story, not a substitution.
I used to mind the ending as well. But, because it was consistent with Mary and her character and it was something she wholeheartedly went after, I didn't mind it as much.
[i][–] mc_forever 6 years ago
I don't remember exactly since it's quite some time since I last watched this film, but Tess wants to take Chris back with her and she is saying to him "don't you want to come with me and go back home" and the child replies that he doesn't want to go anywhere with her.[/i]
Well, that much is obvious. Pretty much any casual viewer can figure that out if they pay attention to the film.
But, it would be nice if we could figure out *exactly* what was being said. Especially, the part where Katharine Hpeburn, the social worker exclaims, "Chris!" Chris runs upstairs and the social worker says, "I'm sure he didn't mean it." as a dejected Tess goes back home.
[i]Posted 4 years ago by nycruise-1
My guess is that while the original "Gidget" with Sandra Dee was a big hit, by the time this 3rd adventure of the "girl midget" was released, the character's appeal and her adventures had been usurped by the "Beach" movies starring Annette Funicello.
Those movies retain all the components that made the first "Gidget" a success: surfboards and hot guys stripped down. In addition, the "Beach" movies exploited bikinis and two pieces on the girls in a way that could never happened in the "Gidget" movies, given the wholesome nature of the character. Even Annette wore a two-piecer (although it had to cover her navel).
They also had music - with the likes of Donna Loren and Annette singing it up. [/i]
Nycruise-1, while you bring up some interesting points "Gidget" was the movie that started the craze with teenagers and the beach culture in the first place. That was one of the reasons it was such a big hit. The movies with Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello didn't even come along until after the release of the final Gidget film.
The reason for the demise of the "Gidget" series is much simpler. Columbia simply failed to find a decent replacement for Sandra Dee after Universal (damn them to hell >:() refused to loan her out for the sequel. Without someone as charming, likeable, and talented as Sandra Dee, the "Gidget" gradually fell through the tubes and so did (temp.) the fad of the beach movie
While, yes, you're right. AIP did find a successful formula for their version of the beach films. But, it also helped that there were contract or loaning disputes with their stars, Avalon & Funicello. So, AIP was able to make several successful beach movies with them without a hitch.
It still makes me sad to think of what might have been had Universal been willing to loan Dee out. Even the TV series had the bad luck of being cancelled after only 1 season b/c ABC refused to give the series enough time to generate ratings. :(
[i]posted 4 years ago by nycruise-1
2 replies | jump to latest
I hated this the first time I saw it - back when I was 10 years old, on "The CBS Friday Night Movie."
They only showed it a couple of times and then retired it.
Who is/was Cindy Carol?
Her two supporting girlfriends - Trudy Ames and Noreen Corcoran - had more TV fame than Cindy ever did.
Trudy actually went on to do a Folger's Coffee commercial with "Mrs. Olsen," playing a young wife whose tired of the same old coffee. ("Mrs. Olsen" calls her "Trudy" in the commercial!)
Meanwhile, Noreen Corcoran starred for years as the niece of John Forshythe on "Bachelor Father" - why she couldn't get a better part is beyond me.
And where are all the HOT GUYS that hang around Gidget??? All we get is Joby Baker (by now looking much too old to be a teen) and a blond milquetoast.
The MOST STUPID part of this film is the party with all the "eccentrics" - and that idiotic woman spinning around the rooms. I hated that the very first time I saw this film. [/i]
Really? I didn't know the brunette friend of Gidget was the niece from "Bachelor Father." It's been a while since I've seen that series. No wonder the other girls seemed so much more comfortable and confident onscreen than Cindy Carol. I wonder how she even got the title role in the first place. She had her moments, but overall just... didn't gel with the part.
And yeah, I agree. It's a shame the producers didn't do better with the male eye candy. I haven't seen "Gidget Goes Hawaiian" which is probably why I didn't think about it that much while watching this movie. But, you are right, it definitely would've helped make the movie better!
[i][–] thbryn 3 years ago
Jimmy Darren got to do Guns of Navarone prior to or immediately after this film so he got to see some real actors at work.
This is the type of stuff Hollywood regualrly turned out in the early 60's. If you don't believe it check out I'll take Sweden, or Bon Voyage.[/i]
Oddly enough, James Darren actually did this movie a couple of years after "The Guns of Navarone." In fact, the movie he did immediately after TGON was... "Gidget Goes Hawaiian."
Why Darren would go directly from a serious drama with Gregory Peck to a mediocre Gidget sequel is beyond me. It's very perplexing because you could tell from his performance in "Gidget Goes to Rome" that he had long since outgrown the series.
Did the studio still not take him seriously? Did he have a very bad agent? Did he make very poor film choices resulting in him not being taken seriously?...
[i][–] rudeboy8080 7 years ago
Boy, did they dumb down one scene! Instead of putting English subtitles over the Italian sings, a looper TELLS us what the sign says!
"Translation: do not touch statue."[/i]
I saw the movie last night and you're right! What the heck was up with that?! At first, I thought there was something wrong with my cable box or something.
Thanks for the heads up otherwise I might've messed with my TV when there was nothing wrong with it. xD
[i]What's new is that between the hospital and wrecking the car, he goes back to Maude's train car in despair. He remembers that before everything happened, Maude had told him she had a present for him and showed him a box. So he opens the box and it's the ring of keys she used to steal cars with a note saying, "Dearest Harold - Pass it on, with love, from Maude." Then he wrecks the car.[/i]
Is there an extended version or director's cut that has this scene? I don't recall ever seeing or hearing of this scene until now.
[i]I am not sure where anyone gets the idea that it is a ghost or spirit. Nowhere in the film has this supernatural element been introduced (that I have seen), we are not shown the image as rising from the car, insubstantial, with wings, halo or a harp instead of the banjo. Or even showing the ghost of Maude with him.
But some people seem to want a more depressing ending where Maude failed to teach Harold and the ending song is meant to be ironic in some way.[/i]
I don't get it either. This interpretation renders the entire film pointless and a waste of time rather than the wonderful masterpiece that it is (and a film I personally love so, so much). But, people are free to see it how they want, I guess.
[i][–] TooManyFives:
I think that the films ending is just as it shows. He sets the car to drive of the cliff. It makes you think for a split second that he has finally done it, but the moment the camera starts to pan up you realise that he is going to be there and that he is alive. When it gets to him you see him looking more alive then he has at any point in the film. Also he is now dressed in a more relaaxed and young manner. Where he was always dressed so smart, he now has his shirt out and is looking cool.
[–] franklindf
I think that's a good analysis. The point here is that Harold never cared about the car. I'd say he viewed the car as a symbol of oppression imposed by his mother in her attempts to model his behavior in the way she wants. Harold, as a captive in her home, chopped the car and exercises his death sequences in attempt to undermine his mother's controlling nature. Maude liberates Harold from his mother and in the final scene Harold displays this by rejecting the car.[/i]
Excellent points! Franklindf, you and TooManyFives have summed up the ending perfectly!
We can't forget that Maude did say that she stole cars to remind people not to get too attached to material possessions (although the ethics in that are debatable).
So Harold's send off to the car at the end feels very appropriate, as a final tribute to the late love of his life.
I don't mind Maude's "platitudes" much. They're what humanized her to me, as well as her mysterious past, likely involving her being a WWII holocaust survivor.
I was annoyed though by her reckless driving and constantly stealing other people's cars without much consideration to their feelings or situations. It reminded me of Susan Vance nonsensically stealing David Huxley's car in "Bringing Up Baby." That part still sticks out like a sore thumb without any rhyme or reason to the rest of the movie, which is saying quite a bit considering it's a romantic comedy about caretaking a leopard in Connecticut!