MovieChat Forums > JakeSWITCH > Replies
JakeSWITCH's Replies
From memory, the Italian was spoken so quickly in the film that it would have been difficult to subtitle.
In the book, Solozzo is basically trying to strike a bargain with Michael (although Michael knows he's only buying time before the next attack on the Corleones) and expresses regret over the attacks on his brother and father. Meanwhile, Michael is barely paying attention as he tries to maintain his composure while hyping himself up for his own assassination attempt on Solozzo and the police captain.
I agree.
I didn't enjoy the film (I thought it was too heavy-handed in terms of both themes and scares) but Thomasin McKenzie was great.
I prefer Pacino in the first film, mainly because he has that juicy arc from good guy into an anti-hero. His performance as Michael in the second film is much more interior.
Everything Dauberman has been attached to seems to rely heavily on jump-scares and booming noises. I'm hoping that they at least dial the CGI back from 'IT Chapter Two' levels. That was awful.
I haven't seen the sets! Do you have a link?
[b]--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: [url]https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake[/url][/b]
[quote]The aforementioned friend who spoke to The Sun about Willis said that people within his camp fear the "Tears of the Sun" injury somehow played a role in his declining health and aphasia diagnosis. In addition to Revolution Studios, the "Pulp Fiction" and "Die Hard" star also sued special effects pro Joe Pancake, who gave his side of the story to the Daily Mail on Thursday, March 31.
"The judge laughed him out of court," Pancake charged, calling Willis' alleged on-set injury and possible aphasia connection "bulls***." According to Pancake, Willis "dragged [his] name through the mud for two years" before eventually deciding to settle in August 2005 (via Daily Mail). Pancake also said that it didn't make sense for aphasia symptoms to suddenly show up after a 20-year-old injury.[/quote]
It appears that OK! might have been the publication to break the story when it was published months ago, leading to Willis' family announcing his retirement today.
Bruce Willis was recently diagnosed with aphasia.
I agree that Riddler felt ... off.
I have a nagging suspicion that there is an earlier version of 'The Batman' screenplay where Riddler was actually Hush (a different Batman villain), and he was the orphaned son of the reporter, Edward Elliot, who was murdered by Falcone on the accidental order of Thomas Wayne.
Then it was decided that Riddler had to be the villain (maybe because his name is more recognizable) and a new origin and motivation had to be crowbarred into the script.
[quote]This was actually when I realized the filmmakers didn't have a good grasp of Batman, or how to put together a coherent narrative.[/quote]
Yes, the screenplay definitely felt like it had been through a few re-writes. There were various elements which didn't gel well together.
I agree that it pulled a lot of inspiration from 'The Crow'. Great movie.
[quote]The scene where the subway punks are mugging someone and The Batman slowly emerges from the shadows toward them....is one of the best reveals in any comic book/superhero movie. Just fantastic.....and a real "Oh Shit" moment for the punks.[/quote]
I think that could have been a cool scene if the subsequent action sequence had any real impact, like Ben Affleck's crunching brawl with Luthor's thugs in 'Batman vs. Superman'. As it was, I still prefer 'Batman Begins', where Batman, invisible, picks off Falcone's thugs while scampering around like 'Alien'.
In addition to the Iceburg Lounge, which gets revisted three or four times, there's featureless construction area where Catwoman and Batman keep meeting up. It makes Gotham feel quite small.
Yes, that final action sequence with Riddler's social media followers definitely felt cobbled on.
Andy Serkis and Jeffrey Wright are both good actors, but they had nothing to do in 'The Batman'.
It's odd that they made Alfred so young (and emphasized his military background in "The Circus") but made Batman a loner who didn't require his assistance aside from solving a code.
Huh, I wasn't aware that The Daily Wire had moved into film production.
To be honest, I was surprised that Gunn didn't make the white supremacist supervillain dad a punchline. He was a legitimately threatening and loathsome character.
I actually would have liked to have seen White Dragon on the Suicide Squad, working under Amanda Waller, but it seems Gunn is sticking closer to the comics and making him a part of Peacemaker's psychosis.
It's an interesting documentary about how online dating scams are almost like pyramid schemes. You should watch it.
Harcourt is played by James Gunn's fiancee, so her character is covered in plot armour.
Vigilante has been able to shrug off damage over the course of the season for reasons which haven't been explained yet.
It’s never 100 percent explained, but it’s suggested that the rocks that surround the little cove that the characters get trapped in are … special, somehow.
From what I surmise, the coral acts as a protective tube against whatever energy is being emitted by the rocks. This allows the kids to pass through the invisible barrier that was knocking people unconscious on the cliff, and in the caves and water.
I'd categorise the older Resident Evil films as "so bad, they are actually entertaining", but this one was hard to get through.
'Reacher' and 'Peacemaker' are similar for the reasons that you mentioned (sensitive brutes with tough childhoods, backstory involving their dead brothers, beautiful sidekicks, all the action is set in a small town, etc).
'Peacemaker' was far better executed, though. I thought 'Reacher' was rushed and sloppy ... the tone was all over the place, the humour was weak, and Alan Ritchson's performance was unintentionally weird, to the extent that a lot of viewers were left wondering if Reacher was supposed to be autistic.
I usually wouldn’t bother mentioning it if the posts weren’t so frequent and prominent on the site.
Judging by the responses in this thread (which prompted multiple reply posts), a lot of people seem to be heavily invested in identifying “wokeness”.
I never respond, but it’s still rather mind-numbing to read over and over again when you’re looking for some interesting discussions about cinema.