MovieChat Forums > screenwriter > Replies
screenwriter's Replies
He's out spending his $350 million net worth.
Couldn't agree more mark. Having all that off screen only added to the tension. Leaving it to the imagination of the audience did far more for the movie. Showing would have been a detraction. I do have to admit I sometimes like those movies that have flashback scenes at the end that show how things were accomplished. That is if it was so engaging you just had to know "how". This wasn't one of those movies.
Travolta's character was spot on. His "creep" factor was off the chart - and to find out he wasn't nefarious at all in the end ... I liked that. No, it wasn't enough to carry the movie but he was great. Not only was his acting fantastic (quasi-pun intended) but the makeup! Sadly few will see the stellar success of Travolta's costume and make-up. If anything good came of this movie it would be the makeup and costume artists can proudly display their work on it in their portfolios. Considering Travolta's net worth - he's pretty much insulated from the opinions of internet trolls who thrive on the failures of others (aka the OP). That person would be well advised to do some self-examination as to why the failures of elicits such a "big O" for them.
I've posted it before but I'd like to think sometimes people with big names select a project just to help out some little guy/gal who needs a leg up career wise. Or they connect with the story like Kevin Bacon did in The Woodsman.
Forward? Wouldn't "forward" be more in line with MLK's "I have a dream" speech? Forward would be a blind eye to ethnicity instead of the magnified scrutiny we have of it today. Far from "forward". You can't swim to the other side of a pool until you let go the side you are on. Clinging to the belief that absolutely everything is ethnically motivated is far worse than the converse of saying nothing is ever ethnically motivated. Worse in that it is damaging to ascribe meaning to things based on your own bias and perception instead of looking for what is really there. Overuse "racism" and any real meaning is diluted down at best and lost at worst.
I guess lupus, kidney failure, and kidney transplant tends to age a person. However, I thought she looked young in the movie.
How sweet you think my "opinions" formed the conventions of the Heist Genre. The statement of the OP is that he/she rooted for the "bad guys" in Die Hard. I merely observed that the "bad guy" characters in Die Hard were not written on any level to evoke any sympathetic feelings for them (a convention of the Heist genre). Root for them all you wish - lots of people even root for characters like Michael Myers or Freddy or Jason - that doesn't change the genre expectations of the stories.
You will as soon as you understand the conventions of a Heist genre.
Seems you missed my point completely or you don't understand the genre of "Heist". Or do you like to root for characters in a heist that have no redeeming qualities as a "thing" for you? You'd enjoy a Hitler stealing jewels (which technically he did - from the Jews)? You'd enjoy bin Ladin as switching out a painting in the Louvre? While there is a "heist" within Die Hard the movie is not a Heist movie at its core.
Yes, and in the book The Little Mermaid committed suicide. Just as that example - this movie didn't specifically follow the book either. You can extrapolate the motive into the movie but the only motive presented was a brutal cash grab.
I love a good heist movie but this wasn't it. To enjoy a heist movie there has to be a redeeming value to the criminal a'la "Parker". There was nothing to admire about the gang of thugs in Die Hard.
One of my favorite quotes is "Always expect anything from anybody. Even the devil was once an angel."
He did some Hitchcock and Twilight Zone too. Not a headliner but he was great in "Inherit the Wind".
"In-your-face" about a French Kissing joke - pun intended?
... and who says women can't be just as shallow as men?
Are you kidding? Disney movies are FULL of raunchy (shall I call them) Easter eggs.
It was more like Dustin Hoffman being Dustin Hoffman - the self-important "actor" acting in a movie. "Improvised" he would have stayed in character. He left character. Nothing was in his Rico/Ratso/Rizzo voice, tone, or style. Great as it is for a movie line and scene it left something to be desired. It felt like a set up without a pay off. From that point on you expected him to draw from within again.
Ever consider that he has his so he might be giving an opportunity to other actors or writers who are trying to establish themselves?
John Travolta net worth $170 million. I think he's okay to do some experimentation. I thought the movie was "meh" as a whole but his performance was 100% spot on - his "creepy" factor was off the scale - and kudos to the artists who came up with his costumes and that hair style. Those things made it worth watching the movie.
Mother!
Julia Roberts net worth - $200 million
Michelle Pfeiffer net worth - $80 million
'nuff said