MovieChat Forums > filmklassik > Replies
filmklassik's Replies
I love that you’re sticking to your guns on this one. I too have a problem with big structural flaws in genre films. Minor things you can let slide, but big things? Not so much.
I think you bring up a good point but one could probably make the case that Deke ran a cost/benefit analysis before making his decision to help Jimmy.
Deke probably assumed that the man Jimmy killed WAS the murderer ... that the odds were probably one in ten that he wasn’t ... but that the odds were 100% Jimmy would be emotionally scarred for life if he, Deke, did nothing to ease his mind.
Thus, if he deceived Jimmy by sending the beret, there was an excellent chance Jimmy would get past his depression and lead a normal life, and only a 10% chance (if the murders continued) that he wouldn’t.
Cost/benefit. Deke weighed the certainty of Jimmy being irreparably damaged for life, against the POSSIBILITY that he would be, and opted for the latter course. Which makes sense to me.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/11/24/the-plan-jack-handey/amp?fbclid=IwAR3bnLo-fmoc2lkX7I2nVyRoidswaabjUIQnfJqWY_Zs9bE1YufZJh9WgDg
Nah. Mitchum was a young hunk who could make his Mom happier than the other guy could. I think the kid sensed that, even if he wasn’t consciously aware of it.
THAT’S why he was hoping his Mom would go with Mitchum, and not the other guy.
“As do most whites.”
Do you really believe that “most whites” (your words) are just yearning to call black people that epithet??
Not “some” whites or even “a lot” of whites (it’s a big country, after all), but “most” whites.
Do you honestly believe that?
You’re trolling now, right? You can’t honestly believe all the stuff you’re saying here (“Who cares if it’s plagiarism or not? The people he stole from are either very old or dead, and modern people only care about NOW,” etc) — do you really believe this stuff?
Good question, but I’m pretty sure this trend predates the burgeoning Chinese market by 4 or 5 years. So I think it’s something Western audiences are craving now also.
Not me, though. I much prefer heroes who are overmatched occasionally and have to really sweat the victory. Makes it more relatable.
Yup. And what about all of Steven Seagal’s crapfests, where he ALWAYS played the indestructible hero? And let’s not forget Clint Eastwood in Pale Rider, where he plays an invincible spectre riding around in the old west.
I mean, of COURSE this type of hero existed before, but never in such abundance.
Today, I see fewer heroes being overmatched in the movies. That is, I see fewer heroes going up against antagonists who are just plain tougher and stronger and better at fighting than they are.
It is happening less and less now.
And it’s weird.
You’re describing the problem I’ve had with most of the movie heroes of the last fifteen years. Alita is just the most recent example. Jason Bourne doesn’t encounter anyone who can really give him a fight. He’s tougher than everybody. And so is McCall in The Equalizer.
And these sorts of overpowered heroes weren’t as much of a “thing” 25 and 30 years ago.
For example, Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton were greatly overmatched by Ah-nold in the first Terminator movie, and Ah-nold himself was overmatched by the T-1000 in the sequel.
Which made both movies more suspenseful, and their protagonists more relatable.
In both of those movies, the good guys really had to sweat the victory. Ditto Rocky Balboa in the Rocky franchise.
And remember James Bond’s fight to the death against the far more powerful Oddjob in Goldfinger? Great stuff.
But today’s overpowered heroes are clearly filling some sort of weird psychic need in the culture. The public now WANTS its heroes to never encounter a foe who is tougher, faster and stronger than they are. Thus, no more T-1000’s. No more Clubber Langs. And no more Oddjobs.
And I’ll be damned if I know why.
“I want the hero to reign supreme. I don't want him to face challenges. God mode: on.”
Good lord.
I mean, good friggin’ lord.
That runs counter to the greatest stories of the last 3000 years.
“I don’t want him to face challenges.”
Good lord.
Didn’t notice the seige machine but thanks for pointing it out. Now the “throwing the brick” thing makes sense.
One thing I still don’t understand that maybe you can clear up for me is how was the babysitter was able to get the duct tape onto her neck if her hands and arms were bound tightly to the chair.
I’ve heard about that final post credits coda but haven’t watched it and instead am just pretending that it doesn’t exist. As far as I’m concerned, the movie ended just before the credits rolled. Which is the way it SHOULD end.
I mean, just to be realistic for a moment: If that babysitter was strong enough – – and her mind was CLEAR enough — that she was able flip that kid the bird before passing out on the stretcher, I’m sure she was strong enough to tell her story to the authorities in no time flat.
You’re wrong. But just to see if your point was valid, I made a list of my 10 favorite movies and, mustering all the detachment I could (which was considerable) I went ahead and evaluated each one — and realized they were all fantastic.
Then I did the same with my 10 favorite novels, plays, and TV shows.
All fantastic.
Long story short, I have impeccable taste. So my reservations about season 2 of OZARK are incredibly — indeed, almost scientifically — well-founded.
OK. That explains it. I apologize. I just assumed you had seen it several days ago. My mistake.
Well, “don’t watch then” is good advice but why couldn’t you have given it a week ago??? I could’ve used it on Friday before I wasted 10 hours of my life on that slow, meandering, make-it-up-on-the-fly b.s. that was Season 2 of Ozark. Why the heck are you only weighing in with your advice NOW?! I’m not kidding! It’s like you’re throwing me a life jacket after I’ve already gone under! (Don’t you know how thoughtless that is??!!)
Well, it was only the “best” in one sense of the word. It was the “best” in the sense that it was suspenseful and clever and well written and well acted in a way that no other scene of the last season managed. It was only the best in THAT sense.
And I can’t wait for season three either provided I’m assured that it’s not as boring and haphazardly written and meandering as season two was.
If I’m promised a tight, suspenseful, beautifully constructed crime story then boy oh boy will I be champing at the bit for season three!
A lot of events. Many many events. But only some of them interesting. And the characterizations, as I indicated on other threads, were inconsistent. People behaved a certain way in one episode and then a completely different way in another.
And the story really meandered. Maybe that’s why I prefer movies to serialized television. The stories are tighter.
Yep. I’ve talked about this elsewhere. The characters were indeed “all over the place.“ It felt rushed. Like they wrote the damn thing in a hurry. And they shouldn’t have.
Don’t disagree. But the show didn’t portray her that way. At first she was frightened but loyal to her father — exactly the way you’re describing.
But then she was angry and defiant with him (Remember the way she had him tossed out of the strip club?). And then later she was blubbering and scared around him (“I’ll make you proud of me Daddy ... oh God I’ll make you proud of me ...”) And then she was angry and defiant again. Whatever the show needed her to be in a particular episode, she was. It’s one of the pitfalls of doing a 10 hour movie.
The other thing you need to do in a 10 hour movie whose plot hasn’t been carefully worked out ahead of time: You need to have your characters dither a lot. They have to TALK about taking a certain action ... and then NOT take it (Remember how enraged Wyatt was when he found out Marty may’ve murdered his father? The kid was out for blood. He was right up in Marty’s grill. And then, bizarrely, the show had him become passive again.)
Why? Because the writers were obviously making up a lot of the plot as they went along, and that particular plot thread was proving inconvenient for them — it was getting in the way — so they just kinda dropped it.
Her character is just one example (among many) of how the writers were clearly making the show up on the fly. A lot of it, anyway.
Season 2 is a good example. One day Ruthie is defiant and willful and telling her father to F off, the next she’s scared crapless and blubbering like a schoolgirl and telling him she’ll do right by him and not disappoint him anymore ... but then the day after THAT she’s up in his grill telling him to F off.
Now, you can say, “Well, people are like that — they’re inconsistent,” etc. But more than anything else it felt like the writers were just being wishy-washy with her characterization, mostly because they had to tread water to stretch a 2 1/2 or 3 hour story into 10 hours.
There’s a lot to like about Ozark. The acting, the cinematography, some of the witty dialogue. All good. But there’s a lot to dislike about it too. Namely the attenuated storytelling.
But that’s endemic to the form. Serialized TV is about the taffy pull. It’s about the streeeeeeeeetch.
Well, millions of people agree with you. So the filmmakers definitely knew what they were doing when they decided to go the Avenging Angel route. And Denzel Washington — like Bogart, Hackman, Newman, McQueen, a few others — is never less than watchable. Terrific actor. But I’m kind of a Scrooge when it comes to omniscient/omnipotent heroes. Just one of my things.
Another example of this: I much prefer Clint Eastwood in the first couple of Dirty Harry movies — where he’s smart and tough and clever but still makes mistakes and, on at least one occasion, gets the crap beat out of him — to the Eastwood of PALE RIDER where he is essentially playing God.