MovieChat Forums > Rinn13 > Replies
Rinn13's Replies
If the movie is "infinitely better" than the book, my god, the book must be EXTREME hot garbage. Because the movie is pretty fucking bad.
I would say he's far more inspiration for Shadowcat. She even had a period where she was constantly intangible, and had to focus really hard to become solid again, which starts happening to him late in the story.
This movie is definitely not "lazy writing". The dialogue is quite snappy and clever, actually.
The the problem is, people often see what they want to see in things. This movie is not "racist", unless you go into looking for "racism" to complain about. Which is often the case these days.
No, honestly it wouldn't. Anymore than revivals of properties like The Twilight Zone were.
If they revived Thriller, the stories wouldn't be anywhere near as well written, because quite frankly, modern TV writers can't write to save their lives. We've seen this illustrated time and time again. The stories would be rife with "topical" contemporary issues, there'd be a bunch of heavy handed plots about racism and sexist etc. It just wouldn't be the same, and nowhere near as good.
This is actually BS, sorry. It was not at all uncommon, in this era especially, for popular shows to simply end or be replaced for one reason or another. The Munsters and The Addams Family were both very popular, but each only had two seasons. Gilligan's Island was one of the most beloved shows on TV, yet it only had three seasons.
In the case of Thriller specifically, it was actually a fairly popular show. The reason it got cancelled, simply put, is because Alfred Hitchcock had it cancelled. I love the man as a director, but in a severely dick move, Alfred Hitchcock Presents was set to become The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, and he felt it "just wouldn't do" to have TWO hour-long mystery/thriller shows on TV. IE He didn't want the competition. He wanted his show to be the only game in town.
That is the unfortunately truth. Otherwise, Thriller likely would have received at least a third season.
I don't think he was really dead. The doctor said something along the lines of "I'll show you how good a doctor I still am", and got his hidden medical tools. The implication is he was keeping these men down there, alive, not undead.
But the movie in general also doesn't make a ton of sense. There is no real explanation why an esteemed professor and psychologist would lead the despicable double life he's leading. He also early in the film seems to love his wife, yet later in a vague scene it almost seems as if he killed her, for no real reason. His motives are erratic and never really made clear, outside of some nonsense about "research".
As I'm sure someone else may have pointed out, this is not, nor was it intended to BE an "anti-war film".
It was a film about people living and surviving IN a warzone, during war time.
Their prank on her was uncalled for, and in very poor taste.
But NOBODY in the camp liked her, not even the other women. She was a stuck up, insufferable know-it-all bitch that no one got along with.
So yes, she DID have a "lesson to learn". That just shouldn't have been the way to learn it. Then again, talking with her or trying to reason with her clearly didn't work. In the end, the gags in the film were played for laughs. That's it. Trying to read or project deeper "intent" is pointless. Trying to slap present day viewpoints on a film from 1970 is also pointless.
I only half-agree with you. I do agree that a movie should accomplish what it sets out to do. And all art should be "true to itself". However, while I enjoy many films that are NOT terribly accurate to their source material, as a writer (and fan) myself, I am also something of a purist. I think that if you're going to bother doing an adaptation of source material, unless you're merely claiming to be "inspired by", then you should do the source actual justice, and STICK to what the source material actually is.
I love Total Recall with Arnold, and I probably prefer it to the original story. But I DO see the point, however, if fans of the story don't like how far it deviates, or perhaps does not fully match the spirit of the source. For as many Total Recalls that I've enjoyed over my life, that AREN'T true to their sources, I've also seen many that stray from the source and suffer because of it, are, in my view, awful, because of it.
I would not agree in this case. I haven't read the short story, and in point of fact I only JUST watched this 1944 film. But I like the film, and think it told a good story. On the OTHER hand, for instance, I think the Hobbit "trilogy" is hot garbage, largely because Jackson and Co. decided to make what should have been ONE film, into a needless trilogy, stuffed to the gills with completely made up crap, for padding. One of the biggest cinematic disappointments of all time, and that comes from a lifelong Tolkien fan.
I do think the insinuation is that she perhaps has a crush on him. And he laughs at it, because he thinks it's adorable, and/or funny. Because she's fucking 6 years old. She's a kid, saying an innocent, kid thing.
But honestly, that's all it was, was a sweet, silly moment at the end of the story. Reading anything more "sinister" or "creepy" into it, is on the viewer, not the film. People bring their own skewed ideals and mindsets and hangups with them when they partake in art. And sadly tend to project a lot on said art.
It reminds me of people who insist on projecting their own private politics into films or other art, when it simply isn't there. But because THEIR worldview and mindset are so utterly dominated by their politics, they can't seem to help but see it in everything.
It's funny too because I always think of that actor for his goofy Adam Sandler roles. So it's a trip to see him play a military "badass".
He had a solid career. But having a lot of acting credits most certainly does NOT equal having a bigger (IE more successful) film career. I'm pretty sure the OP meant that he should have been a bigger "star" actor, with bigger roles, better films.
I guarantee you most people outside of film buffs have no idea who Tom is.
It was funny, because it was unexpected. And it led to the payoff later in the scene, when the dude loudly shits himself after being scared...because of the fiber.
Poor dad guy from Flight of the Navigator.
The Principal, all the way. 84 has that grungy "The Warriors" type of vibe almost, and more violence and of course titties. I can see those things making it seem more "Edgy". But honestly Principal is just a much better film all around.
99.99% of films do not "need" a remake.
And I think this movie was "hardcore" enough. Any more and it would be a parody of itself.
I have said many times, that Jim's brother John tends to overshadow him, because he died young and he was a loud, funny personality. But the truth is, while John Belushi was undoubtedly the better comedic actor, Jim was/is the better ACTOR of the two. By a mile. He really is a great actor.
It WAS fairly stupid from a realistic point of view. Murders especially are often solved with zero witnesses.
BUT from the context of the film, it was a sardonic play on the fact that these kids kept getting away with doing horrible shit, because no one would testify or witness against them. So there was no "proof" they did anything, even though the school and the cops knew it was them.
Dude.....
These kids are, all of them, shown to be:
1. Completely lacking in empathy or compassion.
2. Quite frankly psychotic, and overly violent.
3. They don't care about hurting people or causing deaths.
4. They profit off of getting kids hooked on drugs, and getting teen girls to prostitute to make them money.
5. They bully and terrorize EVERYONE at the school, not just the students but the teachers.
6. It is clearly stated they have raped women before the poor teacher's wife.
These kids are shown to be rotten to the core, basically irredeemable. They deserved worse than they got in the end.
And while I can agree the teacher got TOO obsessed with bringing them down and "cleaning up the school", his intentions were good. He actually cared about his students, and didn't want to see them hurt or drugged or terrorized anymore. He didn't want to see the type of shit that happened to Roddy McDowall, driven to drinking and insanity by their "antics".
Sorry. I can't relate. Even if the guy ISN'T the most likable shining hero on earth, I can't fathom rooting for the punks over him, let alone claiming HE should have hung at the end, as if he was the bad guy.
No. She was never shown being into chicks. She was clearly shown hanging on more than one member of the gang. She was just really into power trips, and goading them into victimizing other women, or getting them to hurt people in general. Like the rest of the gang, she was a deeply disturbed, sick fuck.
Actually, she quit acting after this one role, because they pressured her into stripping completely naked when she 100% didn't want to. The Lisa Langlois confirmed in interviews years later that she felt really bad for the girl, that she was literally shaking while doing that scene. The experience obviously turned her off from acting completely, which is a damn shame.
I'm no fan of censorship or whatever, but BS like that should never happen. If an actor doesn't want to be topless or nude, they shouldn't have to. The scene didn't require it at all, or they could have gotten someone who was willing to strip.