MovieChat Forums > HarveyManFredSin > Replies
HarveyManFredSin's Replies
*That's* the look they should have gone for.
100% This!
Florence *could* potentially look as good, or at least close to as good (because, let's face it, it's a HIGH bar), as Virginia, but judging by that shot, they haven't even bothered... 😞
As you say, Virginia was stunning as Irulan (one of the few times outside of a Disney *animated* movie where they've actually bothered to cast a woman beautiful enough, and thus fit, to be a PRINCESS), but I hope that shot of Florence is misleading, because in theory, the casting is great (Florence is one of the prettiest A-list actresses right now).
Am I safe if I only reply to other posters' replies (rather than reply to wickerman1271 directly)? 🤷♂️
Well, a lot of mediocre men have been allowed to go on for years making trash after trash.
On the other hand, I look at people like Kathleen Kennedy and Amy Pascal, and the terrible decisions they've both made (particularly the latter, not simply from a creative POV but in terms of her leaked emails badmouthing various celebs/colleagues, like Angelina Jolie), and I do wonder whether the oft-trotted out line that women rarely get as many chances as men, and women have to work much harder than men to succeed, is genuinely true...
It seems to be that there are assholes and mediocrities across all sexes, races and backgrounds, who are elevated to positions above their own talents. What I think it takes is simply arrogance and a sharp-elbowed sense of entitlement. It's very likely that those traits are generally more frequent among men, and that up until recently, systemic sexism/the patriarchy has made it harder for women, including talented women, to rise, but I certainly don't think that sense of arrogance/entitlement (which others will no doubt describe as 'self-belief and determination') is *exclusive* to men.
Also, to be fair to Kennedy, most of the Star Wars films she has overseen have been BO hits, despite the mixed and dvisive reactions they elicited (and I can't help thinking that some of those divisive culture wars reactions are exactly what KK wants...) Solo, ironically one of the better recent SW films, is the only one that significantly underperformed. However, if Dial of Destiny tanks critically *and* commercially, she may not get many more opportunities.
LOL!
Very true. I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing *with* you at the absurdity of the assumption that a big cock automatically equals sexual gratification.
I might not feel sympathy for their choices, but they're still human-beings, presumably with families.
Also, speaking even as an egalitarian, anti-elitist/anti-wealth leftist, there's generally very little that individual billionaires can do with their wealth to change things long-term. Without long-term, structural programs that entirely change the way societies and communities live and operate, those individual billionaires' fortunes will vanquish very rapidly.
Those changes require governments and other organisations that prevent billionaires/the wealth gap, from existing in the first place.
Once again, that's not the fault of individual billionaires per se, but the fault of the system that allows billionaires to exist.
That's not even the worst scenario.
The worst scenario is that they're still alive and *waiting* to die, because there's absolutely no way they can be safely brought back to the surface.
This is nuts!
You are a misogynist and an extremist.
I do think Kennedy has an agenda, and I do think she's a narcissist who rode on the coattails of more talented people (who happened to be men), and is now doing the ungrateful thing of using that unearned power to impose her own agenda onto these successful IPs (which I think is a disgrace; political idealogues shouldn't be fucking up much-loved IPs for political reasons, whatever their politics). But it's ridiculous to damn all women because of the actions of ONE asshole. And it's ridiculous to see this as a concerted, planned-out conspiracy. It's simply one opportunistic individual promoted beyond their capabilities, who feels obliged as a woman to elevate her sex via art/entertainment, rather than understanding that the sanctity of art/entertainment comes before her personal politics, and if she truly wants to make a difference, she should go into Congress, rather than tinkering around with something many people hold dear, and has NOTHING to do with politics.
Cap is a pro-FDR interventionist Democrat (but that was back in the day prior to the Cold War, Vietnam and Iraq etc when the US government was still regarded by many as a force for good). Since then, many progressives, and simply ordinary apolitical Americans, treat the government, whether it's a DNC or GOP administration, with a healthy dose of cynicism.
Yes, initially when I saw this film I was confused by the allegiances. I would have assumed that Tony would have been the anti-govt. libertarian and Steve would have been the pro-government advocate of oversight/accountability. But the film makes it clear that their various stances are shaped by their personal experiences; Tony's upon encountering the mother of a man killed, in Sokovia, as a consequence of his own actions, and also in view of his occasionally frosty but generally amicable relationship with the government/military, and Steve's with respect to his disillusionment with the US industrial-military-complex after the events of Civil War and the pursuit by the authorities of his best friend, Bucky.
Also, although I tend to lean on the pro-accountability/pro-government side of the overall debate, should superheroes come under the sole remit/authority of the US? That strikes me as another form of imperialism. One might argue that only the UN should have that authority, and even that is fraught with biases and inequities that favour some states over others.
Whilst I am very much pro-accountability, if and when these superheroes are operating outside the parameters of the US, as they so often do, surely it's fairer for them to be 'free agents' so to speak, rather than the US's attack dogs.
Then again, my OVERALL sympathies are probably with Helmut Zero, who, like me, regards the existence of super-powered beings as an existential threat, whatever side they work for. Period.
It's a fantasy amalgamation of the US and UK.
I actually really like Wilkinson in Batman Begins. He's the only villain in that film that actually seems to be relishing his villainy. My only disappointment is that such a role (i.e. an Italian-American mafioso) didn't go to a more *authentic* actor. The Italian-American John Turturro, in the recent The Batman, evoked the part better than Wilkinson (as good as I think Wilkinson's performance is), and even looks a bit like the Falcone from the comics (something I'm not sure an Anglo-British actor could easily pull off). And, without wishing to be a contrarian, I thought Wilkinson was rather wasted in Rush Hour. He barely registered in that film for me, and if I hadn't seen the cast-list, I would probably have forgotten he was even in the movie.
I enjoy Cumberbatch in Doctor Strange. He's meant to be a bit of a dick, and he does a fantastic job of conveying that.
Yes, why?
Seems a bit compled and convoluted to me.
Maybe if this film had been a hit, that might have been a good idea for a TV spin-off, but when it comes to Pixar movies, it's often a good idea to keep the premise as simple as possible, and build complex emotional and philosophical ideas from that basic core idea.
And without having seen La Totale! I would assume that True Lies is prime example of a film that's superior to the original.
Although I'm not sure some of the politics have dated well (particularly the film's treatment of women), True Lies *is* still a complete blast as a piece of entertainment, with three of the all-time greatest action set-pieces. It might be James Cameron's worst film (if we exclude Piranha II, which he's pretty much disowned), and yet it's *still* a classic of the action genre, and *at the very least* a 4/5 star film.
Although I think Wilkinson deserves some more lead roles, he has been brilliant in a few films, including In The Bedroom (a rare lead role) and The Full Monty (in which his part was arguably the film's highlight, and evoked the most pathos). However, I think on balance, you're probably right, and he does tend to do his best work on TV. He first came to my attention as the duplicitous and pompous Pecksniff in a 90s adaptation of "Martin Chuzzlewit" which I'd highly recommend, for Wilkinson's memorable performance alone.
Benedict Cumberbatch I feel has been great in TV *and* film, and is one of the few actors who is able to seamlessly jump between various mediums without losing anything in the process.
Very much agreed. In fact, we rarely see Tennant in movies at all, unlike Sheen, who tends to divide himself between TV, film, the occasional theatre, and even as a team captain on UK panel shows.
In cinema, Michael Sheen is often cast as real-life people, where he's basically asked to be a glorified impersonator (which is how I first came to know him), or quirky and eccentric characters.
But on TV, he's asked to play *real* people (as opposed to *real-life* people), and that's where one gets to finally see the depth of the man's acting ability and range. He gets to emote. He gets to be relatable. He gets to be the type of character one can identify with and believe, and in many ways, that's even more impressive to me than his, admittedly, brilliant chameleon-like ability to play real-life historic figures, like Tony Blair or Brian Clough.
I'm inclined to agree with you with respect to Hugh Laurie, although as a Brit who wasfirst introduced to Laurie via stuff like "The Young Ones" and other comedy shows, I regarded him as a comedian. He first came to fame through his comedy sketch show with Stephen Fry, and so, when he, and indeed Fry, transferred to more dramatic performances, starting arguably with 1992's Peter's Friends (the brilliant TV adaptation of "Jeeves and Wooster", which predated Peter's Friends, was still very much in the larger-than-life comedy realm), it was a genuine surprise to realise that Laurie, and Fry (who, alas, doesn't seem to do thata much acting these days, but was superb playing Oscar Wilde in the eponymous Wilde, in the late 90s, which, aptly enough, featured an early performance by Michael Sheen) had dramatic chops, alongside their comedy talent.
White people's 'humour'... *sigh* 🙄
Okay, I think this is somewhat extreme.
Women and men should have the same opportunities and access to power as each other.
What I object to is talentless mediocrities being given the keys to the kingdom simply to vandalise it as they feel fit. That can apply to men as much as it applies to women.