MovieChat Forums > dolemite72 > Replies
dolemite72's Replies
Without getting into all that "you didn't get it" bullshit (that pretentious wanky critic types like to spout) I do think you've missed the point a little......actually, you've more likely 'overlooked' it rather than missed it?
in fact you've totally understood the movie (but not understood that you've understood the movie) by your (otherwise) throwaway assertion that (quote) "The TV remote could erase previous mistakes...I wonder if someone tries the same thing and the movie never happens?"
This is EXACTLY the point the movie.
it's not meant to be a solid horror/thriller movie......but more of a critique of the mindset of those that watch such. The 'villains' of the movie break the fourth wall enough to validate this fact. But the viewer watches on.....compliant in the crime. In an ideal world, this should be a movie that nobody has actually finished watching (that 'ideal' world being populated by saints, that is?) But our yearning for violence and carnage is deeply imprinted in our DNA, and the director exposes not only our own moral hypocrisy......but also his own, by making such a movie?
The problem with Coronation Street is that it's rapidly becoming 'The Pat Phelan Show' (and they're spreading his character too thin)
For the last month or so, he has been:
1) Waging a war against Ken Barlows son.
2) Continuing his fued with Anna.
3) Embroiled with his new found daughter.
4) Locating his former business partner.
5) Tending to a kidnapped hostage (who he's had in captivity for well over a year)
All whilst maintaining an otherwise 'normal' married (and working) life with Eileen (even for a soap, it's a bit too much)
It'd be a small discussion?
It would be censored to hell, because even though the UK has relaxed it's laws towards on-screen violence, it still has a problem with animal cruelty (of which there is much of, in this movie) You need only look at the sparse few 'Cannibal' releases over here. The UK will pass any kind of violence uncut nowadays (unless it's sexual violence or animal cruelty)
Best stick with the US BD release.
In my opinion, it wasn't so much the 'genre' that went wrong....but audiences changed.
Around the mid 80's, cinema audiences could get just as much gore and carnage in a Stallone or Schwarzenegger flick (with the added bonus of decent production values, also) and I think the slasher movie paid the price for this audience shift? And even before the 80's were over....the aformentioned action stars started turning to comedic roles also, because of the upturn in comedy movies. So I think it's more likely down to audience demographics, rather than an actual decline in genre?
Never been a fan of the 'Elm Street' series (or those terrible 'Scream' movies either) but Friday 13th 1-8 were solid entries (Halloween sequels were patchy after #4)
Nicko's Nose
Gotta love the delicious irony of your post.....in which you claim that people should not be judgemental about others for liking (or not liking a movie) before going on to call anyone that does.....a moron (with 'mental disabilities')
I'll tell you what (and this goes out to any other delluded fan of this terrible movie) please explain what was so good about:
A) The Plot
B) The performances
C) The cast
......Before just blindly calling it a masterpiece (like most modern moviegoers seem to do over the most mediocre of movies these days?)
No offence amigo, but it works both ways (i.e, do you maybe think people rag on a movie *because* it's garbage?)
As it stands, I love the original (but can't stand reboots, remakes or sequels) but nonetheless went along to see this with few expectations (and it was worse than I thought it would be)
My main gripe (apart from Goslings 'patented' thousand yard stare) was the actual plot (it didn't justify the running time, nor was it interesting enough to even warrant a sequel)
People saying "it's a worthy follow-up" clearly have been watching a different Blade Runner (1982) to me? Without several references, Harrison Ford and the occasional soundbite.....you could release this as a sequel to 'The Sound Of Music' (and I don't think anyone would notice?)
Fair play if you enjoyed it....But it's only been on release for a few days (and the fanboys are already calling it a masterpiece and that is equally annoying to me) As it stands (regardless of contrasting opinion) I highly doubt anyone will be talking about this movie this time next year?
I remember when this hit VHS in the UK (about 1983) in rental stores. I was only about 11 at the time (but was already a movie nut) and had seen pictures in 'Starburst' and other magazines. I used to be the one in the household that rented out the movies from my local shop (once or twice a week) so I rented this one out straight away. Being 11, I couldn't quite understand everything that was going on, but loved the visuals. My other family members were bored rigid by the movie (and to be fair, it wasn't the usual generic action drama or lurid horror release that we were used to watching at the time?) The film was (at the time) regarded as a flop. I think I may have caught it on TV a few years later (and started to understand it a bit more)
In 1989 (with the advent of more 'sell-thru' video releases) the movie celebrated a mini revival (of sorts) and As I was in art college, I noticed a lot of casual cinema-goers were now talking about this (presumably forgotten) movie (in terms of design, effects, etc) so I guess people had picked up on the fact that a lot of more popular movies were influenced by Blade Runner. I guess this renewed interest, lead to the 1991 Directors Cut (which is when. Most people really latched onto how great a movie this is) and the rest (they say) is history.
For what it's worth, I've always preferred the original release (with the 'voiceover') but appreciate the other edits and variants that have followed. I guess it was deemed too 'slow' and talky back in 1982 (the only sci-fi that people wanted back then, was E.T.) and despite the presence of Harrison Ford, it wasn't the typical blockbuster that (even then) he was usually associated with. I'm currently watching it right now (in anticipation of going to see the sequel at the cinema, this afternoon)
I like these films....but I usually spend 50% of the time picking out the many plot-holes, whilst I'm watching them.
The main one that always lingers is......why wait till (and finish at) the designated date and time?
Forensics aside, it's not as if there's cameras EVERYWHERE, which record exactly when someone has been killed (and within the exact timeframe) And even if there was, the huge backlog of genuine 'purges' would clearly rule out each and every body be checked to determine when they died?
Rocky did train his heart out in ROCKY II (after Adrian came out of her coma) and after the (obligatory) frustrating first 6 minutes of the rematch...Rocky got into the fight (as per usual) at the end of the second round (as with most Rocky movies)
I think that the 'Eye Of The Tiger' that Creed is referring to, is a gritty indifference to keep pushing forward (regardless of how many times you've been put down) Rocky had that 'Look' in both the first and second movies....but it had clearly deserted him by the time of his first fight with Clubber. Creed could see this at ringside?
Creed only trained hard in ROCKY II, because he'd all but lost the first fight as well (due to taking Balboa so lightly in the first movie) The fact that he brought his A-game to their rematch (and lost the decision) is the 'Eye Of The Tiger' he is referring to?
Went to see it at the cinema, the day of release (not that that's anything to brag about)
You were doing so well, when you stuck to the "But Hey, It's Your Opinion" response......but then (in typical 'Butt-Hurt-Fanboy' mode) you ruined it, by citing that (and most likely solely) because my opinion didn't align with yours, that somehow I hadn't even seen the movie anyhow (Like, yeah....I just love going to forums and outright rag on movies that I haven't seen?)
Also, I'd disagree with your assessment that a movie featuring a seven stone (near-Ethiopian) woman beating up men thrice her size (yet half her age) ....certainly **DOES** qualify as (quote) "Hollywood BS"
(if you think otherwise, please elaborate?)
Personally, I think THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR or THE INTERNECINE PROJECT can sleep soundly tonight....despite the existence of (cough, cough) ATOMIC BLONDE.
TBH, I don't even think TEEN AGENT (1991) with Richard Grieco, will have sleepless nights either?
Pixote (by a country mile)
RED DAWN (1984)
Harry Dean Stanton plays the father who's been kidnapped by the pesky Russians (who plan to take over America) and shouts to his kids (from the other side of the prison camp fence) "Avenge Me!"
Classic scene (never understood why they didn't open the fence up with wire-snippers, though?)
At least Swayze (and co.) "Avenged" him
About time someone addressed the obvious problem with 'Rocky IV' rather than give that entire millennial response of 'This movie Rocks" (despite the myriad of problems it actually has) What's worse (despite it's sparse narrative) the final fight scene is edited to perfection. I can only guess that Sly had been sampling 'minimalist' cinema, prior to directing this movie?
No offence amigo, that *used* to be a great joke (primarily when Christopher Reeve was still alive) but sort of sets you up as a millennial...for only coming up with it now (like I said, no offence.....but you've just turned up about 10 years too late...to a party that (as far as 'moviechat' is concerned) you were never invited to?
I think she'd have looked just as good in 2003. But I think back then, stone was still holding out for worthy roles (even if they weren't exactly forthcoming?) Nowadays she appears in any old DTV junk going.
She would have been great in T3 (and could have gave the movie that certain 'something' it clearly lacked)
I love the original show and the movie. And the disco theme is awesome. If anything, I find that the recycled material from the show was performed better in the movie. The only gripe I have is Richard Beckinsale not being in it (but Christopher Strauli was good)
Yup...and it's high time that moviegoers woke up to the garbage Hollywood is trotting out to them. Theron is pretty much rubbish in everything she's in...yet the Hollywood media-machine constantLY tries to convince people that mediocre pap (like the last Mad Max or Bourne movie) are somehow classics of action cinema. Hollywood can't even make good action films anymore (and *this* movie is all the proof you need)
There's more than 5 fight scenes in the movie (and they're all really good) Although they're shot and edited more erratically than in THE RAID (and not as technically choreographed) There's a lot more emphasis on knifes and guns (rather than martial arts in the first half)
I'd say in total there was about 10 fight scenes in the movie (because the hero tended to have full length fights with sequential combatants in the same location)
My personal favourite was near the beginning, when our hero had to fight off the guys attempting to burn down the bus. There was a real sense of urgency to the scene, and the limited space made it all the more tense (plus there's a great arm-snap in that sequence) The end fight with the boss was also really good and lengthy (and more inkeeping with the spirit of 'The Raid' franchise) they seemed to be using a lot of wing-chun as well.
All-in-all, HEADSHOT is a worthy addition to any action-movie fans collection. Although it has 'Drama' elements....it's still really action-packed (brutal) stuff.
Highly recommended.