MovieChat Forums > filmklassik > Replies
filmklassik's Replies
Well, if that’s the intention of the movie ... if the character of McCall is supposed to represent the Fist of God or some such ... then on that level these movies definitely succeed. So I suppose I’m speaking only for myself now when I say that I prefer my movie heroes to be brave and smart and capable – – but fallible, too. And to be overmatched on occasion. In other words, I strongly prefer heroes like Martin Riggs and Sean Connery’s Bond to heroes like McCall.
Now, some people might say “I like both” and that’s great. Totally fine. For them.
As for me? I like good guys who, when it comes time for the final death match, have to really, really, REALLY sweat the victory.
But your mileage may vary.
“If he becomes a victim himself, the franchise is no longer delivering the ‘equalization’ that is its trademark.”
Was James Bond a “victim” in Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me simply because one of the bad guys was stronger and tougher? (Bond still won)
Was Indiana Jones a “victim” in Raiders of the Lost Ark simply because a brutish Nazi was stronger and tougher?
Was Mel Gibson a “victim” in the first Lethal Weapon movie? After all, Gary Busey’s character was pretty badass himself and his final fight with Gibson was touch & go.
Was Batman a “victim” in The Dark Knight Rises?
Was Ah-nold a “victim” in Terminator 2?
The list goes on.
Having a bad guy who is tougher than (or at least JUST AS TOUGH AS) the good guy actually helps the story ... and it helps with audience identification, too (“Hey look! The hero is having to STRUGGLE against his opponent! It isn’t easy for him, but he’s not giving up! And, by God, neither will I!!”)
In short:
David vs. Goliath, good.
Bambi vs. Godzilla, bad.
No. They didn’t handle it well. Handling it well would have meant giving him an INDIVIDUAL OPPONENT who is at least as strong, fast and tough as he is, if not more so. Y’know, like Oddjob to Connery’s Bond. Or Jaws to Roger Moore’s Bond. Or the T1000 to Arnold’s less advanced cyborg.
But they made a deliberate decision not to do that.
And I see this more and more at the movies lately. They did the same thing with the Bourne series. They didn’t want Bourne to be overmatched — ever (which would have been great! Make him sweat the victory!)
But they punked out.
Of course it would. But the fashion now is to stoke tribalist identity whenever possible.
It really is bizarre. This tendency didn’t exist to anywhere NEAR this degree even 20 years ago. But now? Intersectionality rules. Are you black? Hispanic? Gay? Female? Then y’all need to link arms with one another and stand up to the evil, oppressive, white patriarchy!
It’s very weird. And very troubling.
Agreed. This movie looks absolutely awful (just watched it) but I think you and I have the minority opinion. Let’s forget the fact that this film was shot with a smart phone. Leave that aside for now. Other movies — expensive movies — that were shot with the Red or the Alexxa also look like garbage. But aesthetic taste seems to be changing, even as we speak.
I can think of any number of motion pictures shot with digital equipment in the last few years that look considerably worse than even rudimentary 35 mm photography. But audiences don’t seem to mind.
Even people who should know better – – like Soderbergh, Cronenberg and Mann – – don’t seem to mind.
It’s really strange.
“The film hits all the right notes: men are awful, white men are awful, women are oppressed, women are powerful and courageous, all women are beautiful, minorities are oppressed, minorities are powerful and courageous, gay people are oppressed, and on, and on.”
Yep. The film is an intersectionality lovers (pardon the pun) wet dream.
I write scripts for a living. It’s my job. I depend on it to put food on the table. And it’s crazy — not to mention disturbing — the degree to which the SJW playbook has made inroads into ALL genres of storytelling. It is now affecting the types of stories I’m able to tell and (just as importantly) HOW I am able to tell them.
When. Will the madness. End???
Good points all. Like you, I hate it when people (whether on the Left or the Right) get “triggered” by ideas that make them uncomfortable.
And you’re right, too, that our campuses are full of such intolerant pantywaists.
There are, believe it or not, and as sick and reprehensible as this sounds, people in the United States of 2018 who are — wait for it — actually in favor of limiting our freedom of speech.
Scary? Yes. But very very real.
Right?? Me and my fellow 5th graders LOVED it!!
Is the hero executing Islamic terrorists like he was in Vince Flynn's novels, or did the filmmakers bow to political correctness by making the primary villains non-Muslim?
If they went the PC route, I will not be seeing the film.
I despise Trump and still pat myself on the back for not supporting that unqualified, orange-faced, con man/creep. (And for what it's worth, I don't think he'll be serving out his full-term. I think he'll be resigning in disgrace in the next 6 to 12 months. Just a matter of time.)
That being said, it is absurd to state, or even to believe, that Ryan Murphy's ultra-progressive AHS – – which every season devotes itself to a specific aspect of identity politics (being gay in America, being bullied, being black, being an oppressed female, etc.) isn't this season focusing on a specific and deliberate takedown of Trump and his supporters.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "Hey, this show reflects Murphy's specific political point of view. That's his right -- even his obligation -- as an artist."
That's a valid way of responding to anyone who is up in arms about the show's in-your-face Progressivism.
But let's not pretend that such a point of view doesn't exist.
I thought Carolla came of great in this flick. Very likable ... obviously funny and quick ... and with an inherent decency that comes off the screen.
Come to think of it, he projects those same qualities in life as well.
Believe it or not, the Clint Eastwood movie Every Which Way But Loose had a similar ending, when it's very clear that Eastwood can win the bare knuckle brawl he is engaged in with his nemesis, Tank Murdock, but he realizes, at that moment, that it isn't what he really wants, so he lets the other guy win.
I actually thought the ending made more sense in the Eastwood flick. It didn't work as well in The Hammer. Although The Hammer is otherwise a very good movie.
Right! One of the first movies to show kids cursing, and the very first (that I'm aware of) to show the demon Pazuzzu cursing.
No. It wasn't. That word does NOT appear in this movie. Other expletives do, including the N-bomb, but not the word you think.
You have posted this assertion elsewhere, and it is simply not accurate.
It's the kind of sincere observation a visiting New Yorker might have made about Europe in 1979 and would be MORE likely to be making today, but here in the bizarro world of the 21st Century, such sincerity is not valued. It's frowned upon. Thanks to the toxin that is Political Correctness, we are now expected to deny the input of our own 5 senses and pretend that the profound social and demographic changes taking place in Europe and North America aren't really happening.
Because PC is not about "good manners." (If only!) PC all about the willful distortion of reality. It is all about pretending that what is manifestly true is actually -- wonders of wonders! -- false, and what is empirically false is actually -- brace yourself, gang! -- TRUE.
So James Caan's character was saying what any normal American would be thinking, but thanks to the PC Thought Police, such thoughts are no longer acceptable.
Lovely.
Yeah, I think the original poster was trolling, actually. Leo was an evil sadistic murdering scum who fully deserved the payback Frank administered. Times ten.
Great ending. Great movie.
What do you mean it's "real equipment"?
It's a terrific movie (one of my faves, actually; I watch it every few years) and I know the equipment in it LOOKS real, but lets not kid ourselves that the torch Caan used in the movie burned anywhere near 8000 degrees.
️Just watched it for the first time and I think you're right: If it weren't for CASINO ROYALE there'd be no KALEIDOSCOPE.
The 3 essential features of film noir:
1) It must involve a crime.
2) It must take place in a working class or middle class milieu.
And --
3) The main character must make a poor and reckless decision in the early going (usually to commit an immoral act) -- for love, or money, or both -- that seals his fate, and (often) leads to his destruction.
Thus, BODY HEAT is a film noir, while CHINATOWN, for all its brilliance, is not.
...And PUSHOVER definitely is.