MovieChat Forums > Iconoclast321 > Replies
Iconoclast321's Replies
Me too.
That flick is a classic. But it was more 'freak' era than hippy era. NYC 70's was the freak era, with the punks about to come right after. Hippies were pre-disillusionment (before the deaths of Martin, Bobby and John.)
Can you find the scene on youtube and link it? I found the one where the three guys are lying on the floor, but not the one you are talking about...
True!
Ah. How did that 'automatic migration' take place?
I thought a bunch of the posts were copied and transferred here (by hand, by people). This is the first I'm hearing of any automatic arrangement between IMDB and Moviechat. What do you know?
Similar flavor. Offbeat style. Country setting.
It is a common and recognized convention to put 'Spoilers' or 'Spoiler Alert' in the title of a post that reveals plot elements.
I'm sorry that you have not heard of this.
Disagree - I thought she was perfectly cast. And their 'teamwork' chemistry was great.
the whole thing worked. and I hated deadpool.
This thread is sick. 14 is 14, even in the wild west. Despite all the pedophilic fantasists wishing otherwise, girls of 14 did not typically marry. Gross.
Not having a husband was her choice - she was landed and quite capable. Nonetheless, many men of the wild west would have seen her strength, abilities and character as a huge asset.
No, just no.
This. And all those saying she was 'marriageable age' on this thread are guys. Probably older guys too, if I would guess. Creepy.
You know who else did that quite successfully? George Clooney.
Great analysis. Just one thing: didn't like either Hailee or Kim. Hailee plays like she's got Aspbergers (a'la Keanu Reeves), and Kim played like a stereotypical, caricatured 'gosh, gee-whiz' kid of the 1960's. Other than that, both good movies.
Although I didn't care for how her character was portrayed in the movie (emotionally flat, cries more for her horse than for her father), nonetheless, I think the tough character that she portrayed was probably a) not unusual for the women living in the West during the 19th century and b) probably would have been seen as an asset, rather than a liability. He staying single was clearly her choice.
"This is the problem I have with the Coen brothers. They are either unwilling or unable to write characters as emotional beings."
Totally agree with you - couldn't have said it better.
This bothered me less with Bridges (because it fit his character), but more with Steinfeld, and with the overall tone of the movie - it was almost like one of their comedies - they could not portray enough real emotion to make it an actual drama. But it was still a good movie, just emotionally flat and lacking any real depth.
"This is the problem I have with the Coen brothers. They are either unwilling or unable to write characters as emotional beings."
Totally agree with you - couldn't have said it better.
This bothered me less with Bridges (because it fit his character), but more with Steinfeld, and with the overall tone of the movie - it was almost like one of their comedies - they could not portray enough real emotion to make it an actual drama. But it was still a good movie, just emotionally flat and lacking real drama and depth.
I found her unconvincing. Reminded me of a 14 year-old Keanu Reeves. A bit Asperger-ish. Showed more emotion over her horse's death than her fathers. Had some problems with Kim Darby as well (a little too 'oh, gosh, gee-whiz!' for my taste). Would have cast someone scruffier, wilder, less controlled, more genuine, less emotionally flat.
Spoiler (of original movie): In the original movie, Laboeuf dies. In the book, and in this movie, he survives.
The original movie ends with Mattie (still as a child - with both arms), telling Rooster he can be buried in her family plot. He takes her up on the offer, then rides off.
The ending in this movie is close to the book - Mattie as a one-armed spinster, just missing Rooster after she goes to find him.