MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
that would be a nice touch - just as the department had Sullivan looking for Costello's rat ("I have to find myself"), they'd have Dignam looking for Sullivan's killer
add Friday Night Lights into the mix too - that show really took the cake, so many characters implied to be seniors in the first season only to still be in high school in the third. At least with The OC, they were consistent with the ages (apart from maybe Marissa's sister) and had Summer away at college in the final series while Seth and Ryan were taking a year out
actually, I thought he was great in this. I've not exactly viewed his entire library, but everything else I've seen him in, he seems to just preen around looking smug.
From my experience of his work, he was playing against type in this and I thought he did a good job.
when Mary says to Ted "I'm tired of talking about stalkers. Let's talk about you" and he nearly chokes on the wine
come on, cough it up Chumpers
maybe he got it indirectly from Tucker - raided his jacket, found an address book. Or his friend who fed-exed the signed baseball also had connections with the Packers.
My most recent rewatch, I only noticed for the first time that when Tucker says "blowing farts in her face", Ted actually turns round and looks at Healey like "what"
Not sure if that was directed or if Ben Still was ad-libbing. So subtle. It's brilliant
not sure how a sequel could work - Healy and Tucker are exposed as frauds, we know who Woogie is now, and Mary and Ted got their happily ever after. Any sequel would put a downer on the happy ending of this one and dilute our enjoyment of this movie. It's so fondly remembered because it's been left alone.
Sugar Ray do a pretty good cover of this song too.
I brought the Ivy album Appartment Life just based on the 2 tracks used in the movie and it doesn't disappoint
yeah, think the idea was that Warren was tackling/sacking Brett. Can't remember if Ted's still in the room for that but maybe it was just for fun and not supposed to be part of the story
"if this chick turns up with a toe-tag, I'm rolling over on you big guy" (intro to Everything Shines starts playing before this scene fully closes, which just makes it even funnier for some reason)
while I completely get that's what they were trying to show, this would have played a whole lot better if it hadn't been for the go-kart scene during the "history repeating" montage, which takes place shortly before this. Why Warren's sudden change of heart?
But that's it, he just gets edgy. Any other time someone gets close to his ears, he starts swinging at them (no "baseball" pun intended!)
too bad that i'm replying to an old imdb account because I'd like more detail. Other than the fact that there's a cross country trip (and a blonde girl), I can't see any other similarity
I've just said something similar in another thread - and the irony is that if Ted had done nothing, he'd have found out a few weeks later from his school friend Bob that Mary had a surgery in Miami anyway.
Then again, had things played out any other way, Tucker would have sabotaged his efforts - that's the beauty of this story.
When Ted agreed to it, Healey was only supposed to track down her address/number (which Ted would have done himself anyway had her number been unlisted), maybe verify that she wasn't married, and that would have been it. While it's not something to be condoned and still a huge invasion of privacy, I don't know that it comes under the category of stalking.
Far more stalkerish than hiring Healey, though, was actually going down to Miami and pretending to have just happened upon her outside her workplace. Given that he'd identified her by legit means (his friend Bob), if he'd just called her office, used his again legit appointment with Bob as an "in" and maybe said he was planning to come to Miami on vacation or whatever and would she be interested in meeting up, that would have been a lot more honest.
In fact, it's a bit of an unresolved issue for me that Mary never gets a better explanation as to why Ted's in Miami, doesn't ask who this "friend" is that he's travelled down with, and what Ted's long term plan was - wouldn't Mary find it weird that he's staying in Miami for an extended time when he has a job and a life back in Rhode Island??
to your last point, I'd point out that it happens in soccer quite often that a manager will bring on a different goalkeeper just before the end of a game if it's about to go to penalties. I'm personally not a fan of this move - even if the side go on to win the shootout, it can undermine the confidence and morale of the substituted goalkeeper in the next game.
I'll add to the list though,
- Gordon and most of the team are selected to represent the country after winning one championship in an upset after finishing second bottom of their league. Jack Riley won 20 championships in a row and still coaches pee wee hockey, and none of the Hawks players were called up despite their league record. (unless you count Banks)
- coaching pee-wee hockey at the junior goodwill games gets you several lucrative endorsements and a Malibu beach house to stay in for the duration of the tournament
Yeah, it's a nice bit of development for Charlie that's kinda ruined in the 3rd movie, when there's no reference to him coaching or wanting to be a coach at all, and in fact seems convinced that he's a good enough player to go pro
First time I watched it I thought this. On repeat viewings I enjoy both aspects of the film equally.
I think, first time, the film's sudden change of gear is jarring. On future viewings, I know what to expect, and, if anything, it just adds more to the earlier scenes with Jude Law, especially the increasing strain in their friendship after Rome.
Unless they'd already read the book, most viewers wouldn't know what direction the plot would be going in. I certainly didn't. Given that the film's artwork prominently features Jude Law (with Gwynneth Paltrow), I assumed the movie would simply be about Matt Damon having an extended holiday in Italy with them, more of a character study than anything else, and the first third or more of the movie would only serve to reaffirm that. So killing off the most magnetic character when they do is absolutely shocking on first look.
It's possibly the greatest hoodwinking of the viewer since Janet Lee got in the shower.
Psycho is rightly such a well know film that the identity of the real lead character, Janet Lee's fate and the final twist were all common knowledge before I ever watched it. And how I wish I didn't know because experiencing all those reveals would have been mind blowing. Ripley is possibly the nearest I'll ever get to that experience.
Matt Damon's acting, or the direction of it, is so good in this scene that I interpreted it the way you said Minghella describes it.
"Tom" is no longer acting when he says "let her in, what's the difference", it genuinely looked like he had given up and was resigned to the fact that Tom/Dickie was going to get sent down anyway. Then it's like he gets a second wind and starts acting again, like he says, instincts kicking in because there's still a chance, however slim, that he can get away with it, but that would all be gone if Marge entered the room.
As for the first question of the OP, I'd assume he was going to kill her in the empty apartment but had to change tac when there were people outside. That said, Marge also disappearing would have been too much....although maybe he'd already made the decision, even at this point, to write Dickie's suicide note and go back to being Tom. So one more murder attributed to Dickie wont make a difference.