MovieChat Forums > mel2000 > Replies
mel2000's Replies
<blockquote>Yes Ms. Duke was miscast and trying a little too hard, but her campy performance has much to do with making this movie an enjoyable bad one.</blockquote>
I totally agree. I just saw a YouTube video of Barbara Parkins auditioning for the role of Neely O'Hara and she was much better than Duke with her more serious performance. But the movie would have been dull with her in the role. The movie needed Patty Duke's campy performance.
<blockquote>she was too old for MAME and her line delivery was not what it used to be.</blockquote>Lucille Ball's line delivery didn't suffer because of her age, it suffered because of her years of severe alcoholism. Carol Burnette's comic line deliveries were as snappy as ever at the same age.
I tried to get through Terrifier 2 but found it too slow-paced, so I stopped at the school scene with the dead animal. I'll try to get back to it later and hope that the pace picks up and the movie gets more suspenseful. So far a big disappointment compared to Terrifier 1. It seems to be more about family dynamics than about Art the clown.
EDIT: Went back after a year. Unfortunately the movie never got any better. It was long and excruciating to make it through to the end. The numerous fake-out death scenes made me feel like a fool for watching. What a waste of time.
<blockquote>...or push them off the ledge after you swipe their check so you now have 2 million.</blockquote>Actually there were 5 separate million dollar checks. So you'd need to somehow get the other checks to make the murder worthwhile. And since the body would be found below, those extra checks in your possession would provide motive for you to be the killer. You'd have a lot of explaining to do and probably would never get to enjoy your extra millions.
I just saw it for the first time a few days ago and enjoyed the first 2/3 of it. I really enjoyed the trash talk between the characters. It had lots of potential but the ending seemed rushed and ran out of ideas compared to the first part. The visual backstory involving Dr. Vannacutt went nowhere and wasn't really needed.
I certainly don't think the Night of the Living Dead remake was better than the original. In being first you get to experience the fearful immersiveness and plot surprises that a remake cannot match. In any case, I didn't like the remake's attempt to make the starring female as strong as the male. I think a single strong lead was needed to make us aware of how necessary it was to keep everybody from falling apart. That characterization was missing from the remake.
<blockquote>Whilst I like do the movie, the premise is just too questionable</blockquote>I found it entertaining too, but you're right, the premise is preposterous.
<blockquote>you cannot escape violence, and sooner or later, the situation in which they ran away from, will crop up in that community.</blockquote>There are plenty of tiny US communities that have little if any violence.
The greatest problem is that after the last elder died, no one would be able to take over without being completely inculcated with the banking, legal and real estate systems. It's highly unlikely that those without the backstory of violent trauma would see a need to continue the lie. Not to mention that the survivors were probably very poorly educated in math, so they'd have been victimized by financial vultures.
<blockquote>...and will more likely continue by passing on the truth to Ivy and Lucious and keep that going till a new trusted group can be told</blockquote>Highly unlikely that such a preposterous lie could be continued without the basis of trauma behind it. Why would they agree to needlessly lose children to curable diseases and accidents when they took no oath to do so? Ivy and Lucious would have first hand experience of the benefits of modern medicine.
<blockquote>So evidently Mr. Walker (William Hurt) had a lot of money/power.</blockquote>That just exposes another weakness of the plot. A person with enough power to sway government legislation would never be able to just disappear into a private compound without outsiders looking to see what he's up to.
<blockquote>to live in the 19th century which they imagined was a simpler time.</blockquote>The irony is that, judging by the 1897 tombstone, the US had already lost its innocence by then. Train robberies were rife, public drunkenness and prostitution were common, and all major cities had established police departments by the 1860's.
<blockquote>They didn't want to have one foot in one world and one foot in the other</blockquote>They already had one foot in the other world since they were paying the outside security guards to keep strangers out. They also paid the government for a no-fly zone, which wouldn't have been enforced in perpetuity unless the elders continued to pay for it. The movie conveniently avoids discussing what happens after the elders start dying off.
<blockquote>To protect its premise, the village could only use what it could produce.</blockquote>
Was their goal to pretend that nothing existed outside their village? If so, their game would have eventually become uncovered as soon as the elders started dying off since there would be no one left to keep up the ruse.
A good movie will make sense in the universe it created. While I enjoyed The Village, there's no denying that it's built upon plot contrivances in service of delaying the twist reveal.
<blockquote> the whole "They paid to make sure planes dont fly over" shit is stupid.</blockquote>
It was not only stupid, but completely unnecessary. They could have simply explained that those big birds in the sky were natural sightings.
<blockquote>He had taken an oath to never return to the towns.</blockquote>
That's an awfully weak excuse and it sounds like a plot contrivance. What would happen if the security guard found a new job or was transferred? And why couldn't any of the other elders go? Did they all decide to put their oath above the safety of the villagers?
<blockquote>There are attractive female cops in real life</blockquote>True. I have an in-law who was a model before deciding to become a cop. Female models tend to be taller than average and I think that's an advantage for being a cop.
<blockquote>I liked morpheous' performance in this one</blockquote>I found his character irritating. His entire one-note performance consisted of going into conflict mode every time someone opened their mouth.
<blockquote>The movie has an original perspective of a foe.</blockquote>This movie showed me that hallucinations make boring and muddled antagonists.
<blockquote>Actually, he pretty damn good in this.</blockquote>Agreed. I was beginning to think I was the only one who appreciated his relatability. The others were a bunch of irritated caricatures.