MovieChat Forums > Ismailov > Replies
Ismailov's Replies
I wouldn't say she killed Sam by overpowering him. She got lucky by hitting his eye with the stiletto in just the right spot that it ended up going into his brain like an orbitoclast.
Having just seen the film, the impression I got is that the cop was going to haul him to the detective, thus ruining his ambition to go into space (aside from all the legal trouble he'd be in.) So he beat and kicked the cop to the ground in order to escape the nightclub.
I think one factor is that Batman, Superman, etc. can pretty easily be detached from the decade they originated in. I can't imagine Dick Tracy in a modern setting without the character either becoming a generic "badass cop" or being comically out of place.
IMO Beatty gives off a "larger than life" personality to his roles: a comic book hero (Dick Tracy), a criminal that was getting romanticized in his own time (Clyde Barrow), a radical journalist who got to witness the October Revolution (John Reed), a politician whose shocking honesty makes him a viable Presidential candidate (Bulworth), a quarterback ready for the Superbowl (Heaven Can Wait), etc.
Paul Sheldon is a guy who has written light romance novels for a living. He seems like a pretty standard human being otherwise, and I think James Caan did a good job portraying that, providing plenty of contrast with Annie obsessing over him. Caan also looks more like an average Joe, whereas Beatty looked like a fashion model who has to fend off women.
I'm 31 years old and know of Beatty as someone who starred in (and/or directed) famous old films like Bonnie and Clyde, Reds, etc., but aside from the 2017 Academy Awards screwup he hasn't come up much in pop culture recently.
I don't think Beatty's lack of "productivity" can be entirely blamed for this. Jack Nicholson hasn't been in anything of note for many years either, yet I'd bet far more young people have watched The Shining than any Beatty film. Having played the Joker also helps keep Nicholson's name going, at least among Batman fans.
To be fair, Hard to Kill was a box office success and is generally considered one of Seagal's better films. I'm sure it had plenty of unironic fans at the time, although within a decade Seagal's reputation went from promising action star to punchline.
I remember it was on IMDB's Bottom 100 list circa 2003, and yet when I looked at the negative reviews so many could be summed up as "MICHAEL MYERS ISN'T IN THIS OMG WTF."
I saw it years later and thought it was fine. Unique plot, reasonably entertaining villain, certainly enough gruesome imagery, and a memorable ending.
I didn't mind the "robots" stuff given the already supernatural nature of the villain and his scheme.
I wouldn't say the concept is dated, given there's presumably still commercialism, cynicism, and less-than-child-friendly behavior in the children's entertainment industry.
Only major change I can see being required is the inclusion of social media and the Internet in general.
Except that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the depiction of Neo-Nazis in this film was lampooning Nazi behavior shown in Nazi propaganda. Such behavior wasn't the invention of the Allies or "leftists."
Whether you like it or not (and think it's "propaganda"), Nazism has a very bad reputation in the United States. Hence the humor in a squeaky-clean children's TV star (who is portrayed as a stereotypical hippy-dippy liberal) suddenly finding himself accused of being a Neo-Nazi.
Yeah I don't get the razzie nomination either.
The only explanation I can think of is that in the early 2000s Williams was trying to overcome the family-friendly image he acquired in the 90s, hence One Hour Photo, Insomnia, and this film. This was noticed by people back then. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of moviegoers were thinking "hey look it's that Disney actor trying to appear edgy by cussing up a storm and holding penis-shaped cookies" rather than judging his performance on its own merits.
It's true that the average American isn't going to care about determining the exact percentages of "non-white blood" (which is the notion those laws were based on), but in a less literal sense the term still applies: a person with "swarthy" features who is known to have a black parent or black ancestors will generally be taken much more seriously in society identifying as black rather than identifying as white.
Obama "stick[ing] out like a sore thumb" among Kenyans would be relevant if he was in Kenya, but in the United States it matters far more that one of his parents was a black African and that he "looks black" by American standards.
For your argument to work, you'll first have to assume that films produced under the Nazis (e.g. "Triumph of the Will") showing crowds repeatedly shouting "heil" and giving the Hitler salute were cleverly placed there by time-traveling Allies and/or "leftists" designed to make Nazism look bad.
Him being "canceled" by the TV network seems reasonable enough, since he's supposed to have a squeaky-clean image, but I think the two "parents" taking out their pistols and revealing they're law enforcement placing him under arrest was meant to be comedic rather than realistic. Remember, this is the same film where entertainers are threatened with assassination by a children's charity if they refuse to perform in ice shows.
Not only that, but he lived for another two decades.
When I saw this film, I blindly assumed Welles would be portraying an overweight Henry VIII (I know Henry wasn't always so, but I momentarily forgot.) So when I saw Cardinal Wolsey I was thinking "that actor sure looks a lot like Orson Welles" and only later, seeing Henry depicted as an athletic young man obviously not played by Welles, did I realize my mistake.
To be fair, Steven is shown in earlier scenes (e.g. at Medieval Times) starting to tell Chip that they can't be friends, only for Chip to interrupt him.
And when Steven finally gets to talk to Chip, he says that he currently doesn't have any room in his life for a new friend. Chip then asks what he's trying to say. Only then does Steven bluntly state "I don't want to be your friend."
Steven could have said something like "in a year or two my life might get back to normal and we can possibly hang out," but he probably didn't want to give Chip any wiggling room to keep hanging around him and Robin, and was upset since Chip was just excitedly saying how he "got Robin back" for him (without his foreknowledge let alone permission to intervene in his personal life.)
Steven is portrayed as uncool, non-threatening, and easily pushed around by others. I think Broderick does a better job providing this contrast to Carrey's character than Stiller would have.
I see no problem with "judging dead people" provided historical context is taken into account.
Thing is, context doesn't help Wayne here. He said things in his infamous 1971 Playboy interview that were considered foolish and offensive by the mainstream standards of that day, and the interviewer kept pushing back against his claims.
You could argue Wayne was an old man stuck in the past, but even then he wasn't incredibly old (being 64 at the time) and he clearly had the means to acquire literature and talk to people who could contradict any prejudices he'd have grown up with. Instead he appears to have doubled-down.
That being said, there's been no shortage of actors with bad politics and/or bad personal lives, and I have no difficulty separating the art from the artist when it comes to Wayne (especially considering so many of his characters' views on race would make him look almost liberal by comparison.) But then that's just me.
The consensus seems to be that it's a good movie, but competing with Barbie and Oppenheimer doomed its commercial success.
I think another movie is entirely possible provided that the unfortunate timing of this one is indeed to blame, rather than "audiences are tired of Mission Impossible" or "we can no longer make good Mission Impossible films."
I think by that point it was too late. Not only was Gil's life on a downward trajectory, but his admiration for Bobby was shattered when he heard the latter's jaded view of baseball fans. Gil was probably thinking, in his unstable mind, "wow, I kill this guy's teammate whom he had a beef with, and THIS is what he thinks of people like me?"
In the context of how Americans have historically understood the concept of race (e.g. the one-drop rule), he is considered black.
Former NAACP head Walter White could easily "pass" as a white man, but he was likewise considered black by the standards of American society. There's no way Obama could "pass" as white.