MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
the sardonic way Peter reluctantly says "Really Tom, what was it" gets me every time.
It's after Tom's talking about million dollar ideas, and says he had an idea like that once, and for several seconds Peter, Michael and Samir just sit there in awkward silence, the unspoken consensus 'we don't want to know, but one of us has got to put Tom out of his misery and ask'. It's brilliantly done.
I think some aspects are better than the original, other aspects are weaker. Overall they even each other out so "every bit as good" is a fair assessment
I think in the original, it's implied that the Dutch girl was adopted by an American family after being orphaned during the war, which magnifies it.
But yeah, the scene in the remake with the deaf girl gets me every time, especially the way her mom says "thank you" at the end
glad someone else has mentioned this - the guy who worked at Coles with the moustache and English accent was the worst for me - there was a character like that in the original but they didn't even try to modernise him
"coach T was able to pull that greatness out of him". Actually I think Jason Street did more for Matt's game ahead of those last 2 games in their state title season than Coach Taylor ever did. Ahead of the Mud Bowl semi-final especially, taught him how to "be taller" on the field and angle the passes so they wouldn't get intercepted (they'd either reach the receiver or go out of bounds) - Taylor realised this and was so impressed that he offered Street a QB coaching role there and then.
Presumably JD McCoy thought that this was down purely to Coach Taylor.
not sure the first part would have worked because it was Solozzo who insisted on meeting with Michael and only Michael, on the basis that Michael was a "civilian" and therefore not considered a threat, and Solozzo then did his best to keep the location of the meeting a secret so that no Corleone members could turn up blazing. It's therefore highly unlikely that they'd have agreed to have Sonny (or anyone other than Michael, apart from maybe Tom Hagen again) meet with them. Sorry.
However, I did start another thread saying that once the Corleones found out where the meeting was going to be, they could have found alternative means of carrying out the assassination(s). That would have at least provided some protection for him. OK, the rival families would know, or at least strongly suspect, that Michael was in on the setup, but he'd have been one step removed from the incident so at least he wouldn't also be wanted by the law for personally gunning down a police captain. Think that's one of the biggest reasons they had to get him out of the USA, otherwise he could have just gone to Vegas with Fredo.
Your second point, though, yeah, the old country would be one of the first places the enemy would look, and chances are the other families would also have a lot of connections there and so it would be a lot easier for them to make a move against Michael. Plus the Corleones should have known how disloyal and easily corruptible low-level members such as bodygurards could be, especially given what had just happened with Paulie.
Presumably they were confident that Vito's old friend Don Tomassino would be able to organise protection for Michael out there OK, but evidently he didn't.
I thought he was saying his school's opponents on the game tape he was showing had the best defence in the city, meaning that his performance against them was all the more impressive
to show that he'd be a running back rather than a wide receiver
52. Calling your half-sibling a Tecmo Bowl playing mf'er is all the provocation needed for a full blown fistfight on your front lawn
the only bit from the montage that adds weight to the film (but probably wasn't intentional) is when Sosa's talking to him on the phone and laughing. It's quite chilling when rewatching knowing what happens between those 2 and how their final phone call goes.
there's a similar montage in Team America too (made by the same people who did South Park)
Glad someone else has mentioned this. Arguably going AWOL when Tony had left him in charge was far stronger grounds for getting got than the Gina thing. Plus the banker who turned out to be an undercover lawman was recommended to Tony by Manny, so to Tony, Manny was at least partly responsible for the fact that he was in this situation and had to go out of town in the first place. And when Tony calls him on it (think it's during the "say goodbye to the badman" dinner), Manny's too dumb to comprehend this (so it's therefore not exactly out of character for him to pull such a dumb move of sneaking around with Gina - kinda ties in with extechop's comment about how he also got sanitation and sanitarium mixed up. He should have just said nothing and they'd have thought he was a horse)
this comment wins. I'm trying to work some "Billy Bats" pun in but it wont be anywhere near as good
that would have been an ingenious shout-out to M if that had happened - or if the blind man just sorta said aloud that he recognised that guy's voice or touch or scent when Bruno returned to the scene, which in turn alerted the authorities
I noticed that when I re-watched last night for the first time in I don't know how many years.
It's also the way he says "Harvard?" so excitedly, but yeah, that look of disappointment when it was 'only' Delaware Tech was gold
"Maybe Bruno -- deep down inside -- KNEW that if he killed Guy's victim, he WOULD implicate Guy...and force Guy to kill Bruno's father."
That was my thinking too - like a really elaborate blackmail plot
"Where there's a will, there's a bush." 🌳​🎋​🌳​
what kind of bush ?!
to your first point, don't forget that only we, the audience, are privvy to how conspicuously Bruno acted at the carnival and how many people potentially saw him - Guy doesn't know any of this. For all he knows Bruno blended in, did the deed and then got out of there without being spotted or suspected.
I think Bruno maybe gets in his head about how if he tells the truth, he could be charged as an accessory, in which case it wouldn't matter if there was enough evidence that Bruno was the one who actually carried out the murder.
It's beyond ridiculous though that Guy didn't have a lawyer represent him from the beginning, especially since he was considered a person of interest, to say the least.
I also found it crazy that the cops doubted his alibi because the drunk guy on the train couldn't remember him. It seemed like the emphasis was on Guy to prove that he didn't do it rather than for the authorities to prove that he did.
Reminds me of the part in another Hitchcock movie, Rear Window, when James Stewart is questioning his neighbour's story that his wife was out of town, saying "did anyone see her get on the train", to which his detective friend brilliantly replies "did anyone see him kill her".
Pat Hitchcock had the best lines in this
"she was a tramp" - when her father hits back that everyone has a right to life and the pursuit of happiness:
"and she pursued it in all directions"
surely that would only work though if they tailed him on the sly. Being so open about the fact that they'd have a detective with him at all times would only see him make a conscious effort to avoid doing anything suspicious