MovieChat Forums > jackronner > Replies
jackronner's Replies
Well pvt. I think the word is "sympathetic", in the sense you share their feelings. You share . . . you care. So many of modern characters would be the ones you would maneuver away from at a party for fear of having to listen to them all night. Why spend good money to hang with a bunch of them for two hours? I think such movies entice us to loathe a character so we can rejoice in his (usually) death. I've often thought: "Oh, will somebody shoot this A-hole!!??". They're often not a real bad-guy, just stupid or annoying; so it's like rooting for the death of regular person. Kind of insidious and mean-spirited, but it gets a cheer or a laugh.
Maybe it's the pointy nose she and Swank have; some find that off-putting.
It's an uncompromising adherence to form and fairness, tempered with compassion; an honorable approach to life which is almost unrecognizable in this world. Perhaps that's why I find this show so wonderful. Every character HAD character.
Generally agree, and find Foyle and company to be the top of the crop. Perfectly cast, and I want to marry Honeysuckle Weeks. What a sweetheart.
Hate to "trump" the other replies, but: Woodstock (the first one). Estimates: 500,000 people, 29 port-a-potties, zero assholes.
I take it you're kidding with the "fully semi automatic" (oxymoronic) ar-47 Glock, etc. The AK can be set to fully auto, but I don't think that's the gun on the cover. More like a 1990's H&K like an MP-5. Plenty of them around, tho' it would be more likely that, in reality, they used the dime-d-doze AK-47 (aka Kalashnikov) used throughout the world since WW II.
Have you ever seen her early films, such as Getting Straight, The Sand Pebbles, The Wind and the Lion? If anything, she was TOO pretty. As if an artist painted an idealized portrait of woman. You may not care for her acting, but I've never heard anyone who thought she was anything but beautiful.
Gotta say I haven't heard "apeshit" in years and it made me laugh. A very vivid and useful word that is fading away. Sigh.
As to making for an entertaining "twist", this kind of nonsensical plot ruins the whole movie for me. I sure wouldn't want him for a Dad if I were his rich-kid son. "Let's not get creative, Dad!! You can afford it!"
I'm guessing FFF stands for (I hope!!) Fellow Film Freak???
How'd I miss that? You got it in one. It just occurred to me that, like the hook of the movie, I can watch this movie time after time after time despite knowing the inevitable ending. Thanks for scratching that mental itch.
Upon seeing this recently after many many moons, I realized that the gaslight element of the film was the onliest thing Boyer didn't intentionally do to "Gaslight" Ingrid, but only because he didn't think of it, the cad. The inexplicable dimming of the light when no one else was using the gas was perhaps the most effective thing in convincing Ingrid she was losing it, yet it was only an unintended consequence of his using the light in the attic during his searches for the gems. I don't think it was even clear whether he was aware of it its effect on her as she only mentioned it in passing. Given that this was the title of the movie, you'd think they would've tried to have him use it as part of his many nefarious schemes to unbalance her once he'd learned about it.
Given the story line of the loss of Christian faith, and the brief allusion on the TV newscast to the beginnings of the expulsion of the aliens starting in the Middle East, do you suppose this was meant to suggest the "miracle" began where so many others had taken place? What, did some kid who loved vampire movies try out some holy water on one of 'em? There were a lot of oracular themes in the movie, from Abigail with her visions and her water fetish to "Swing away", and Gibson's loss of faith in miracles was a main theme. Apparently, M. Night was raised near Philly and went to Catholic and Episcopal schools, so maybe the Abrahamic mysticism rubbed off?
I haven't visited this site in ages, and was amused to find that my only other post also was about a Mel Gibson movie (with a similarly fundamental plot flaw). It's funny, since I pretty much boycott all of his movies since his racist antics. I didn't check for other threads before the OP, but it pretty much mirrors this one. What I can't abide are those people who predictably counter that an admittedly invalid plot premise is OK, because otherwise the movie wouldn't have the surprise twist, etc. Well, it's only a surprise since there were no rational grounds to have expected it. Especially when the flaw is evident from the beginning, it ruins the whole thing for me. At least in Signs, the big water twist comes right at the end so I wasn't chafing thru the whole movie, and I only had to deal with the weak plot about unarmed aliens taking us out one at a time. In my later years, I have taken the simple expedient of walking out of the movie. Ahhhh.
Well, having barely made it thru the movie when it came out, I certainly haven't renewed my memory by seeing it again. But, tho' the cops may have warned him about his son's possible death due to Dad's shenanigans, still no mention of fingers in the mail, etc. Totally divorced from reality (and probably from his wife even after getting the kid back whole); what Dad would accept that risk?
No real or fictional kidnapping of a child is the simple choice of life or death of the child as it is presented in this movie; there's the at least implicit threat of maiming or maltreatment of the the kid. As with J Paul Getty's grandson, when they sent his parents a severed ear as an edge in ransom negotiations. Not even an allusion to this in the movie; and what Mom would let Dad gamble with his kid's life? Plus, even if they returned the child and Dad withdrew the bounty on their heads, this doesn't mean the authorities will stop looking. It is literally not a get out of jail card. So what do the have to gain? This flaw was evident from the beginning, so I'm surprised that I didn't walk. I must have had a date.
That's what I figured. Unless, of course, he's actually Robert Kane or the like. Thought perhaps the "kane" part was an homage to Citizen.
Well, "arcane" does mean understood only by the few in one sense. Let's hope it means also means esoteric, as well.
Well, that was uncharacteristically human of IMDB. Most businesses would have not cared or demanded $$$. Hadn't thought to find a replacement forum until I watched Frantic again, and the ridiculous premise of the flick riled me up enough to see if there were any "do you mind?" minds out there; as in "Do you mind? Please don't try to fob off a nonsensical plot on us!!" Found one immediately here, I'm happy to say. Ciao for niao.
Well done, Jim, then. I'll try not to be a "paster/poster". Thanks.
Thanks for the info and the welcome. I'm still curious: did IMDB just turn over everything? Sounds too good to be business.