|
PateraOctopus posted:But seeing as in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly he finds those clothes in another man's possession, when he had them in the first two, I don't think they're really intended to be related at all except stylistically. You're right about them being only stylistically related, but GBU takes place before Fistful.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
As for the fact that you can see where previous bullet holes have been mended in Clint's character's clothes, isn't that just because they were literally the same wardrobe pieces, and not for any continuity reason?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
I always thought of them in, like, sitcom continuity. Crazy poo poo happens but at the beginning of every episode (and they ARE episodes) it's all back to normal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Snak posted:As for the fact that you can see where previous bullet holes have been mended in Clint's character's clothes, isn't that just because they were literally the same wardrobe pieces, and not for any continuity reason? Probably, but like I said, he also still seems to be recovering from the injuries to his right hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:As for The Man With No Name, there is some continuity. Near the end The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Blondie trades his duster for dead man's poncho. The poncho gets shot through in A Fistful of Dollars, and you can see where it's been mended in For a Few Dollars More. I think he also wears some kind of hand brace in FaFDM because the bad guys stomped on is in AFFoD. You can also see those mend-spots in GBU, because it's the same prop. He does wear the hand thing in For a Few Dollars More, but it's so he appears to have a more socially-acceptable explanation for why he doesn't use that arm than "so it will be free in the event that I have to shoot you." That's why they call him Monco--one-armed--because unless he's about to murder your rear end you're going to assume his hand doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, you can totally read continuity into it--and I do enjoy viewing them that way--but it's pretty academic, and in the end it doesn't change much. And sooner or later you have to stop and ask yourself why this guy has such a knack for running into identical twins at separate times, and why he doesn't seem to notice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
PateraOctopus posted:You can also see those mend-spots in GBU, because it's the same prop. He does wear the hand thing in For a Few Dollars More, but it's so he appears to have a more socially-acceptable explanation for why he doesn't use that arm than "so it will be free in the event that I have to shoot you." That's why they call him Monco--one-armed--because unless he's about to murder your rear end you're going to assume his hand doesn't work. I like to believe they're all in the same continuity, but even if they're not, Clint Eastwood still plays the same character. He's basically treated as a stock character of old-west mythology, having many adventures without the need for continuity. However, in GBU, there's a scene where Tuco muses to himself that he used to have a friend named Ramon, who was the villain in AFFoD. He might have been referring to one of the guys that tries to help him kill Blondie, but I don't think any of them were named Ramon. I've always liked to think it was a vague continuity nod to the Rojos in San Miguel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
He's definitely talking about the eldest of the brothers he hires in that scene--he's addressing him in a coy, playful way to show that A) he knows he's hiding there and B) he's aware of how lovely it is to not see a friend for years and to only come back when you need a favor, but hey buddy, there's cash in it for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
PateraOctopus posted:But seeing as in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly he finds those clothes in another man's possession, when he had them in the first two, I don't think they're really intended to be related at all except stylistically. That's why some consider it a prequel. http://website.lineone.net/~braithwaitej/mainsite/overview/leone/chrono.htm At this point the only logical explanation is that it's some sort of multiverse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
Was Al Pacino ever a good actor, was he always an "Acting- Brilliant" actor? I keep seeing Jon Lovitz's character when I see Al Pacino in any role.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 09:55
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
kapalama posted:Was Al Pacino ever a good actor, was he always an "Acting- Brilliant" actor? Watch The Godfather and/or Dog Day Afternoon and then see if the question still applies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Watch The Godfather and/or Dog Day Afternoon and then see if the question still applies. Also for a recent example, watch the HBO movie You Don't Know Jack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:36
|
|
|
In Red Dragon, did Harvey Keitel's character really tell his team to talk to every single news vendor within a six hour radius of the city of Chicago? Did I hear that wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:In Red Dragon, did Harvey Keitel's character really tell his team to talk to every single news vendor within a six hour radius of the city of Chicago? Did I hear that wrong? The question should be, why are you watching Red Dragon instead of the infinitely superior Manhunter?  e: gently caress, now I've got to watch Manhunter again. IT'S JUST THAT GOOD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Was Al Pacino ever a good actor, was he always an "Acting- Brilliant" actor? Give me a break. Have you ever seen Justice for All? Scarecrow? Serpico? Godfather I or II?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Was Al Pacino ever a good actor, was he always an "Acting- Brilliant" actor? My favorite performance of his was Ricky Roma in Glengarry Glen Ross. Definitely check that one out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Give me a break. Have you ever seen Justice for All? Scarecrow? Serpico? Godfather I or II? I just watched Heat and his ACTING almost made stop watching it. ("You can get killed WALKING YOUR DOGGIE!") I did end up fast forwarding through most of his scenes after some point which destroys the amazing mood that Michael Mann builds in his movies. Speaking of Manhunter, btw. (And the answer to the above is not recently. The last few times I have seen Pacino in anything has made me cringe enough that I am hesitant to start watching anything with him in it again. I lived with it in SImone, but I could not finish "Scent of a Woman") I will give Glengarry Glen Ross a look-see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I just watched Heat and his ACTING almost made stop watching it. ("You can get killed WALKING YOUR DOGGIE!") I did end up fast forwarding through most of his scenes after some point which destroys the amazing mood that Michael Mann builds in his movies. Speaking of Manhunter, btw. See, why are you starting with Pacino movies from 1991 or later? He was already waaaay in decline by then (Scent of a Woman can blow me). the early '70s were his peak, easily, just watch anything he made '71-'75 and it's real easy to understand why people considered him possibly the greatest living actor. Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon in particular is one of my favorite film performances by anyone, ever. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Favorite Pacino movie/performance will probably remain Scarface. For this scene alone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2dbF7SK4KI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUaV-eovvoM cheerfullydrab posted:In Red Dragon, did Harvey Keitel's character really tell his team to talk to every single news vendor within a six hour radius of the city of Chicago? Did I hear that wrong? Six hours by by foot, train, bike or car?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Pacino actually owns in Heat when you realize he's a literal cokehead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I will give Glengarry Glen Ross a look-see. You should do this. It's such a good film. The problem with the Pacino stuff you're talking about is that in the past he's had so many iconic scenes where he does his scenery chomping bit and it doesn't come across as ACTING because the film has built to this moment and it fits the character and situation. And then you have stuff like like Scent of the Woman where someone's obviously said "you know that scene in Dog Day Afternoon [and you can insert several alternatives here], we want you to be someone who is like that all the time for no apparent reason". The fact that he got the acadamy award for Scent of a Woman the same year he was nominated for Glengarry Glen Ross makes me sad. And then you look at all the films he was nominated for and didn't win and I remember why I don't give a gently caress about the Oscars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Dog Day Afternoon is so good and Pacino is so good in it it's almost illegal. It's on Netflix instant, don't look and the description (even though it's not a huge deal, I liked the fact I went into in blind the first time).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
Guys, I just watched Analyze That and I don't understand why everyone is so gaga over this DeNiro guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Guys, I just watched Analyze That and I don't understand why everyone is so gaga over this DeNiro guy. That's because you have to watch Analyze This first. You can't judge an actor when he's in his decline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Guys, I just watched Analyze That and I don't understand why everyone is so gaga over this DeNiro guy. I hear you bro, DeNiro and that Harvey Keitel guy were the worst part of Little Fockers too. Have they ever really done anything interesting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I just watched Heat and his ACTING almost made stop watching it. ("You can get killed WALKING YOUR DOGGIE!") I did end up fast forwarding through most of his scenes after some point which destroys the amazing mood that Michael Mann builds in his movies. Speaking of Manhunter, btw. You had me going until you mentioned S1mone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:I hear you bro, DeNiro and that Harvey Keitel guy were the worst part of Little Fockers too. Have they ever really done anything interesting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
SubG posted:In order to get a feel for why Keitel is so respected you have to watch some of his earlier work, like Mother, Jugs & Speed (1976). I can't believe the same man who directed such gems as Mother, Jugs & Speed and Krull began his career slumming it with grindhouse schlock like Bullitt and The Friends of Eddie Coyle. Talk about a man who matured with time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
In what terrifying universe is Krull a good movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:In what terrifying universe is Krull a good movie? The same one where sarcasm was never invented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:In what terrifying universe is Krull a good movie?  Jeez, man, come on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
Oh snap. Honestly with some of the discussions around here anymore (a loving Equilibrium thread) I don't know what's real anymore though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
When up is down, right left, and black is white When hours pass like minutes on the clock Take heart: a man is always making light When "Bullitt" is described as grindhouse schlock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:In what terrifying universe is Krull a good movie? But I liked it when I was kid The part where chewbacca died was really sad no seriously, you could call bullshit on it being a star wars ripoff if it didn't have a trash compacter scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
Snak posted:But I liked it when I was kid I liked that whenever the monsters died they made the R2-D2 terror sound.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
I just wated 1408. I'm sure there are little clues dotted around the film as to what the room is, how it came to be and why it does what it does rather than just "  it's an evil room".I'm going to rewatch it to try to find out But what do the clues (if they are clues) point to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:I just wated 1408. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but in the short story it really is just an evil room. It's rather Lovecraftian and fits with Stephen King's interpretation of evil in many of his works. There is no rational or supernatural origin to this isolated pocket of evil, and that's what makes it so maddening: the room simply is. I seem to recall they stuck fairly true to this idea in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 10:37
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but in the short story it really is just an evil room. It's rather Lovecraftian and fits with Stephen King's interpretation of evil in many of his works. There is no rational or supernatural origin to this isolated pocket of evil, and that's what makes it so maddening: the room simply is. I seem to recall they stuck fairly true to this idea in the movie. But then why lace the rooms history with various specifics , to drive the observant viewer mad?  Like the three paintings. Why those three specifically when it doesn't look like the people in the painting (the paintees???) were ever in the room or commited suicide? It also seems like the events depicted (when the pictures start moving) could have happened long before the hotel was built. I think there was a tudor painting? Why the specific number 1408? (checked the year, nothing out of the ordinary), 1+4+0+8 = 13 of course. But presumably room 1309 has had nothing bad happen to it, or any other numbered room. Did everybody who stayed at the room die?, or was it just the 53? Why was the uneaten food in the hallway focussed on when the room service person was clearly there? Who sent the postcard in the first place?, are there any clues on it as to the sender? Argh! 
spikenigma fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Apr 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:But then why lace the rooms history with various specifics , to drive the observant viewer mad? You weren't too observant. The 14th floor is actually the 13th floor; there is no room 1309. A lot of old buildings don't have a floor labeled "13" because people are superstitious, so floor 14 is actually floor 13, so you have a room whose number adds up to 13 on floor 13. I'm pretty sure this was explicitly stated in the movie. Everyone that stayed in the room died - it was likely that each manager made it off-limits after someone died, then when he was replaced the new manager didn't believe the hype and let someone have it, and they died, at which point the manager made it off-limits, and so on. Details about the room were focused on because that's world-building. It wouldn't have been as interesting a story if we were just told the room was evil and kills people and it was left at that. The pictures were just flavor, not background events. The rest of your questions are not going to get answered. That's the beauty of the story. King's best works leave the horror largely (or wholly) unexplained - it's doubtful that any explanation he could come up with would be as interesting as what you imagine based on the details given.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:But then why lace the rooms history with various specifics , to drive the observant viewer mad? The answer to all your questions is: it's a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:The answer to all your questions is: it's a bad movie. Which is too bad because I honestly think the short story is some of Stephen King's best writing. After he gets in the room the narrator starts off thinking normal type thoughts and there's such a slow, subtle transition that you can't even point to one specific place where he goes off the rails, but all of a sudden it hits you -- he's talking about some crazy poo poo now (due to the hallucinatory power of the room). Just perfectly executed by King.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 15:38
|
|