MovieChat Forums > Ismailov > Replies
Ismailov's Replies
The timing doesn't really make sense. Andrea Constand accused Cosby in January 2004 (and wasn't the first to do so.) Cosby's controversial "Pound Cake" speech was delivered months later. Hannibal Buress' stand-up routine calling Cosby a rapist took place a decade later.
Cosby's speech did get a lot of attention at the time he delivered it, but by the time of Buress' routine it seemed pretty much forgotten, and I don't think it's unfair to say Cosby's influence on pop culture was less relevant in 2014 compared to 2004.
Also he was by no means the first person to complain about problems among black people. Louis Farrakhan and Calvin O. Butts among others were making similar speeches many years before Cosby and would have made more obvious targets for a discrediting campaign than an aging comedian.
He intended to go on tour last year, but that obviously didn't come to pass.
It's possible ill health is the reason, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he thought his reputation was going to significantly improve after leaving prison and he's instead finding it difficult to get such a tour off the ground.
O.J. Simpson apparently had a similar disillusionment after his trial ended. He thought his life was going to go on like before: starring in commercials, being an honored guest at public events, etc.
It's hard for me to even imagine Wayne in Blazing Saddles. Was he supposed to be Taggart? Because if so, it's safe to say Slim Pickens meshed far better with Mel Brooks' zaniness.
And yeah this was a guy who thought High Noon was unpatriotic and a sorry excuse for a Western. I doubt he was going to have a high opinion of a ribald comedy aimed at young adult audiences that lampooned the genre.
The first movie had a simple but effective story of a guy who felt uncomfortable with "freedom" and who saw an opportunity to return to the lifestyle he was used to while improving—if not literally saving—the lives of a boy, the boy's mother, and their friend played by Ritter.
I can't think of any plot for a sequel that wouldn't either be less-than-captivating (e.g. Karl learns carpentry and becomes content with life outside a mental hospital) or makes the character into a joke (e.g. Karl finds himself in the big city and has to defend himself against criminals or ends up in a bunch of lousy comedy scenes.)
I doubt it'd make much difference. People judged this film based on his earlier output and found it disappointing.
Arnie has also claimed that by the time it came out (1993) the sort of action movie characters he portrayed were passé. And even though this film does poke fun at such characters, it also celebrates them. If it had been a more straightforward parody (like, as I mentioned in another thread, Austin Powers spoofed James Bond) it'd probably have done better.
Yeah I agree. Even though Mammy was a caricature, she was still someone the audience could look up to and admire, and Hattie McDaniel did as good a job "elevating" the character beyond mere caricature as was possible given the script.
As far as I know Stepin Fetchit had no real dramatic parts, and his characters weren't meant to have particularly redeeming qualities (at least among white audiences who just saw them as lazy dummies), so his output has aged far worse.
Because just speaking "stupidly" isn't what makes Stepin Fetchit infamous. It's because his characters are seen as having perpetuated stereotypes of black people as lazy, foolish individuals at a time when the status of black representation in cinema sucked pretty bad.
Similarly, it's entirely possible to have a black woman character who does domestic chores without having her be a "mammy" caricature.
As someone who doesn't mind the movie's plot twist, actually having the original cast return would be overkill IMO. I think having Jon Voight as Phelps and having a different team from the original series allowed for a necessary distance between the show and the movie. Having Peter Graves and original cast members reunite only for the latter to be murdered by Phelps (and the only survivor being some new team member played by Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise) would generate a lot more criticism among moviegoers.
I also thought the ending was a good idea, especially since earlier in the film there's a scene where Ford's character is informing the boy about the need to check when a pistol has bullets, so I was like "gee I bet the kid is going to end up saving the day by shooting one of the bad guys," which of course doesn't happen.
Leonard Maltin called it a "smug, self-conscious blockbuster-wannabe" and I think that's a fair assessment.
So much of the film felt like it was beating me over the head with "haha look how silly action films can be" yet at the same time trying to make me care about this particular action movie plot. The Vivaldi character for example was neither funny nor interesting, but a bunch of scenes fixate around him as if he were, until he's unceremoniously offed by Benedict.
In Austin Powers by contrast, the fact Dr. Evil is threatening to hold the world ransom for one billion dollars isn't intended to make the audience go "oh no I hope Dr. Evil doesn't destroy the world aaaaaaaaaaaa" or look upon Austin Powers as a cool guy who will gloriously save the day, instead the plot is purely a means to poke fun at the Bond franchise. There's no split personality going on like there is with Last Action Hero.
It is by no means a terrible film, there are amusing bits, but having a kid constantly go "hey look action movie logic contradicts real world logic" can only generate so many laughs when the writing is weak. Not to mention a lot of other gags are lazy, like a funeral for a mob boss where everyone is armed.
He played a similar character in Unlawful Entry. I try to remember that lots of actors are capable of playing different kinds of roles if given the opportunity, which is why so many dislike finding themselves typecast.
In context, Marlene had just learned that Peyton is a fan of windchimes, Marlene could notice that Claire and her husband were stuck in what seemed to be exceptionally bad luck following Peyton's employment, and Marlene already disliked Peyton. And when she saw Mott's house had the same windchimes, she decided to confirm her suspicions by visiting said house and looking at old newspapers for photos of Mott's widow.
I think that if the scene where Peyton talks to Marlene about having put up windchimes didn't exist, and Marlene just immediately concluded from looking at a photo of Mott's house "omg these two houses have windchimes, PEYTON WAS MOTT'S WIFE!!!" then yeah it'd be ridiculous, but I feel the movie provides just enough context so that Marlene's discovery isn't much of a stretch.
I think it's reasonably entertaining. It's after 2001 that Seagal's output starts being really boring.
That being said, "entertaining" and "good" aren't synonymous. It's a goofy movie and you can tell Seagal's ego was given almost free rein, yet I think that just makes it more amusing to gawk at, alongside the over the top villains and good ol' violence.
If I'm recalling right, Richie shot Bobby over the latter sleeping with Richie's girlfriend. Also, Bobby is a cop involved in drug busts whereas Richie is a dealer who gets high off his own supply. So he had two clear motivations (personal revenge and removing potential obstacles for his criminal career) for killing Bobby.
Richie shot the woman because she honked her horn at his car for not moving. It was clearly a spur of the moment decision. If he was willing to shoot someone over something so trifling, then he poses a danger to any random civilian who just so happens to momentarily irritate him.
To be honest I don't see the editing issue. Seagal pulls Tattoo out of another room, throwing his face and body up against a brick wall (which would explain why Tattoo would be "bloody looking," though looking at the footage of him getting up in 1080p he doesn't look bloody to me.) Seagal turns around because a woman is fleeing who momentarily notices him. Tattoo gets up, Seagal turns to face him, Tattoo delivers the "f-you cop" line, Seagal kicks him so hard against another brick wall that it is enough to kill him.
Tattoo "falling up" as you put it does look a bit jarring for someone who I'd expect to be recovering from already being thrown into a brick wall, but it doesn't look like reversed footage IMO. Most likely the director had the actor positioned out of the camera's field of vision so he could quickly get up seemingly unscathed and deliver his defiant line. I assume the idea was to have audiences momentarily expect a fight scene only for Seagal to deliver his kick of doom.
As someone who regards TLD as among the weaker films in the series, I'd argue one of its few saving graces is introducing Dalton as Bond.
If Moore was in TLD the script would presumably be sillier (e.g. including the "flying carpet" scene deleted from the finished product) and you'd continue to see complaints that he's simply too old to play Bond. It'd end his Bond career on a stronger note, but it'd also make TLD less memorable.
Yeah I think the film makes it pretty clear that blade runners aren't heroes. The theatrical version even has Deckard narrating at the start that he's an "ex-blade runner, ex-killer" and that police using the term "skinjobs" would have been calling black people the n-word decades ago.
Audiences presumably preferred Pleasence or Savalas as Blofeld, which means portraying a bald guy. Plus, since the character in this film isn't explicitly mentioned as Blofeld, the baldness in addition to the cat makes it unambiguously clear who he's supposed to be.
Merely being "in some good films" implies you could replace him with another actor and the result would be just as good if not better. But I struggle to imagine anyone taking Sandler's place in stuff like Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore. He clearly contributed more to those roles than having a pulse.
Steve, insofar as you could accuse Korshunov of being blinded by faith in a cause, whereas Steve just seemed like an utterly selfish individual who was going to be rich but decided to kill his partners in crime merely to get even richer.
Of course, you can argue that Korshunov's cause succeeding would have caused far more death and destruction, but in purely personal terms I'd still say Steve is "more evil."