|
In Wild Wild West, Will Smith is getting the poo poo beaten out of him by some big thug with metal under his skin. The guy raises a wrench or something to deliver the finishing blow, and then his mouth starts sparking and he dies. What the hell? I'm pretty sure you don't see any wire or anything touching him, what was the supposed cause of his death?
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2008 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
In Fargo, why is Prince credited as Victim in Field? It's clearly not him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2008 14:56
|
|
|
Cacator posted:According to Cruel Intentions, Ryan Phillipe and Sarah Michelle Gellar were half-siblings, and Ryan Phillipe initially only wanted Reese Witherspoon on the bet that he would be able to sleep with Sarah Michelle Gellar but soon he found true feelings for Reese Witherspoon until Ryan Phillipe died and Reese Witherspoon got her revenge on Sarah Michelle Gellar by handing out copies of the journal that had all the secrets!! They were step-siblings which makes everything better but yea otherwise that sounds right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2008 19:42
|
|
|
In Gladiator, are we meant to think that Maximus is going to escape and lead his army against Commodus? Obviously that's the plan, but is it a surprise/twist when his plan is foiled, or just the progression of the story? I can't remember the first time I saw the movie so I don't recall what my reaction was.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
I didn't think anyone else had seen the 4th Floor, I discovered it by accident and it's become a kind of cult classic among my family. It's so awful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 05:04
|
|
|
Jim Caviezel is not actually real, Mel Gibson didn't think it was appropriate to actually pick a real person as being able to adequately represent Jesus Christ onscreen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
Directorman posted:So I've just watched K-Pax, and I kinda want to talk about it for a minute. I haven't seen the movie in a long time but I remember being kind of frustrated with it for what I think are similar reasons. I liked the idea of being ambiguous but I thought they handled it horribly, like they have him do things that he could only do if he absolutely was an alien, but then they're like "Oh wait maybe he's just crazy" and it doesn't gel at all
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
It's been a while but I think there was a police truck/van knocked over in the background, I think he was "arrested" but escaped Fugitive-style via a car accident.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 06:27
|
|
|
People do it to be edgy because Pulp Fiction is really popular with  college kids or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
andyouandi posted:That's what I thought but could never understood why he wanted her wacked? (wouldn't he try to wack Henry first?) Huh I had always interpreted that as Karin being paranoid as a result of their whole situation or it being ambiguous as to what Jimmy's intentions were.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Yeah they probably thought acting was more fun and lucrative than writing. I mean would you rather spend months hammering out a screenplay or loving around with George Clooney and Brad Pitt?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
I just watched Chinatown and I don't think I "get" it. It was enjoyable enough with good performances from its leads, but I always see it mentioned as A Great Movie and I'm just not seeing it. I don't really see any depth to it or any meaning beyond "Things aren't always what they seem; also incest." Am I just bad at movies?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
SubG posted:It's not a puzzle to be figured out. It's considered a great film because of craftsmanship: Towne's script, Polanski's direction, Goldsmith's score, the acting, the production design, and so forth. It evokes a certain time and more particularly a certain genre of fiction, and it does this superlatively and without either being merely a pastiche or engaging in revisionism. Got it, thanks. I feel like I need to watch it again to really appreciate it because it totally wasn't what I expected and I think that distracted me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Just curious - what were you expecting? I'm not entirely sure. The really deliberate pacing and small scale of the plot kind of threw me off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 07:59
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:They are spazzing because for about two years straight it's been the Batman Discusso forum and just lately it's gotten seriously awful. The derails are really annoying but this was a quick question and answer that would already be forgotten if you weren't freaking out about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Ein Bear posted:In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back. Like you said he already rules the galaxy. Twisting someone to the dark side is really the only way left for him to grow more powerful. It's implied that Jedi/Sith/Etc value the Force and mastering it holds an allure beyond military tactics and logic. He clearly doesn't really care about the material aspects of being all-powerful, he just sits in a dark room and thinks about the force all day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
cletepurcel posted:It's not made explicitly clear in the movie but yeah I think that it was a veiled threat against family members or something. This theory is reinforced by the fact Michael gets Tom Hagen to talk Frankie into killing himself in the bathtub after, specifically so that his family will be protected. They still would have loved for him to testify at some point, and he would definitely be killed if he was released from Witness Protection so they would lose that potential asset. Henry Hill had already testified, he had no leverage so they didn't give a gently caress what happened to him once he broke the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:
What was the original ending?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Cool as Ice. There will be no further argument. Cool as Ice is great for leading to the creation of a game with the same title, where you and your buddies take turns approaching girls at the bar with that amazing pickup line.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Binowru posted:I believe it's "Drop that zero and get with the hero." Yep that's the one although apparently I have been misquoting it as "Lose the zero and get with the hero."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
I saw Dumb and Dumberer in theaters. A girl I liked wanted to see it 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
I'm going through Six Feet Under now and it's really jarring when they started using 16:9 in season 3. I think 4:3 fits the intimate mood of the show and more importantly it was a mistake to switch up the format halfway through the show's run.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
It probably stems from the Potato Head origins since originally the body parts were the toy and they were meant to be just stuck into a potato or other food object. The body is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Between rewatching The Dark Knight recently and seeing a preview for Rabbit Hole last night, has anyone else noticed that Aaron Eckhart has the exact same mannerisms and tics as Peter Krause? It was really bugging me because I kept trying to figure out who I know that acted like Eckhart and then I realized it was because I just watched all of Six Feet Under a few months back.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
I just watched The Aviator, and while I found it to be enjoyable I'm not sure what the point was. I learned a lot about a few decades in Howard Hughes' life, but there wasn't really a strong central plot and it just kind of ended at a very arbitrary point. Was Scorcese just trying to convey some biographical information or is there some underlying meaning/message that I didn't get?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
In The Godfather, Part II, what exactly was Fredo's role in what happened at the start? Did he just let the hitmen into the compound? He tells Michael at the end that he didn't know what they were planning but that seems just ludicrous, so was he lying then? And did he actually kill the hitmen (right after the attempt Michael hypothesizes that the hitmen are already dead, killed by whoever was their contact on the inside, and sure enough they find the corpses. But that seems to require a will to act/competency that's beyond Fredo). I get the idea of what happened but the details are lost on me. I probably didn't need to spoiler-tag that but figured I would just to be safe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Having just watched it a week ago, I'm pretty sure that they never explicitly answer any of those questions, and at least some of that is purposely ambiguous (like exactly what Fredo knew). According to Wikipedia, the sequel novels that came out a couple years ago attempt to flesh those details out a little more, but Puzo and Coppola had nothing to do with those books. That was kind of my impression, but I wasn't sure if I was missing something since so much of the plot is unspoken and inferred from deciphering the lies/reading between the lines. This might be an "amateur filmgoer" opinion but rewatching it tonight, I can't help but feel the movie would be much stronger if the scenes from the two timepoints were separated instead of intertwined. The Michael scenes are engaging and complex enough that it feels deflating every time we jump back to the past, and (from what I can tell) there aren't strong thematic ties between particular scenes where it's meaningful to watch Vito do something after you've seen Michael do something else. I get that there's the overarching theme of Vito building the Family to support his family and friends, while Michael destroys his family and friends to strengthen the Family. But it seems belittling to assume that the viewer requires constant back-and-forth scenes to remind them of that. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Feb 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
TELL THAT TO MY WIFE 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
"Motherfucker" is treated differently than "gently caress".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but it kinda looks like it. It's a question about a completely unimportant minor point of The Dark Knight, but it's not too bad guys, I promise. It's more about the US Justice system I guess, than the intricacies of masked vigilante vs clown terrorism. I took it to mean that anyone who was prosecuted by him (or at least the higher-ups with big lawyer money) would appeal their conviction under the premise that their prosecutor was corrupt; he was caught (in this hypothetical scenario) extorting a confession under highly illegal means, who knows what other methods he resorted to, evidence he falsified, etc. At the very least their lawyers would probably be able to challenge the chain of custody of any evidence that passed through Dent's hands. Honestly though my understanding of the justice system is based entirely on Law and Order episodes: I remember at least once this same premise (If you gently caress up here all of your past convictions will be under scrutiny) was levied at Stabler when he did something stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:People think James Franco is hot? I guess if you like creepy-looking motherfuckers with godawful hairstyles. Whenever someone complains about hairstyles that aren't like a mullet or a rattail or something I assume they're 50+ and very angry about young people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
I watched the trailer for Ed Wood after hearing some good things, and it seemed Whimsical Johnny Depp as gently caress. Is it worth it if I'm not a huge Depp fan?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Jumanji has such an odd ending. Especially how Robin Williams' character who should have been completely traumatized by the events. Or how Bonnie Hunt got to grow up and have a life but then turned back into a little girl. That is really weird. I would be pissed as hell if I had to start over at 12 or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Well even then, her concern was that being stuck in her dream meant her kids were going to be without them. No matter how long she's stuck in limbo, her real life is still waiting right there for her. I don't understand why she was so bothered by essentially getting to live extra long. Also I figured the limit was like three levels, so worst case scenario she's there for like a few decades? The stability of the dream world would also suggest that she's only one, maybe two levels deep at most. She didn't want to live an entire life before she could see her children again. Remember she doesn't think she's killing herself. Yeah the worst case scenario is only "a few decades" but why live through that if you can just pinch yourself to wake up?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Two Questions: The answer is either: A) Set design does not take precedence over narrative structure. They decided the scene would be better if Mal was across the street and this isn't really important. B) Leo is still in a dream in what he thinks is the real world; his mind didn't even consider this detail.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:In Star Wars, why does Anakin continue to be a dick after Padme dies? As I understand it he knew Palpatine was evil but went along so he could save her. When she dies anyway shouldn't he call him out for lying or something? In Attack of the Clones there are some brief exchanges where we find that Anakin feels that he deserves more than he has and that the goody-two-shoes Jedi are holding him back, and also that those in power deserve to rule and he's kind of down with military fascism. They never really develop it and it's dropped entirely in Revenge of the Sith but it's a more believable reason for why he would continue to be the right-hand man of an evil despot for 20+ years than "Wanted to save my girlfriend but she died anyway and now... I'm gonna be evil I guess?" Also there's the idea that the dark side is more than just a tool for shooting lightning, and once you kinda become evil there's some active thing (a FORCE???) that twists you and helps you become more evil. However, the films (wisely) never make it clear whether that's really a thing, if the force takes an active role in influencing people or if that's just a metaphor/excuse for human nature. "He really loves me, it's just this Dark Side keeps making him hit me." The books go back and forth but who gives a gently caress. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
David Cross's mortician character died in Men in Black, right? Is his video-store owner character in Men in Black II supposed to be related to him?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Barometer posted:Oh, wow. I always thought he was playing an entirely different character. He has the same name on imdb so... I guess he's the same guy? This is way more thought than I ever meant to put into MiB II. I caught it last night, and it's actually got some decent scenes and really funny lines. It's a shame they didn't just get Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith together and make a new movie, instead of doing the Comedy Sequel thing where you rehash the plot and every gag from the first film while also tripling the screentime of all the side characters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:That's about what I mean by point. I don't know about comparing things between the films, but within Part II, the "point" of juxtaposing Vito's rise with Michael's... whatever seems to be based around their view and treatment of family. We see Vito essentially forming his mafia family as a means to provide for and protect his own family, and his friends/people he's close to. At the same time we see Michael tearing his family apart and turning on people close to him in order to solidify the power of his mafia family.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
I didn't like QoS, but something that stood out to me when I rewatched it recently is that it's drat good looking. The colors pop and the sets are all very interesting and well designed; that opera house in particular is gorgeous with that white color scheme. Whoever was in charge of all that did a great job.ServoMST3K posted:Exactly! This is probably the best summation of how some current approaches to comedy strike me. Along with what cat doter included about editing, I think I can finally make sense of it. Again, I'm not at all saying I think these types of shows and films are "bad". I've laughed at a good amount of the stuff I've seen, but it was just so backwards compared to the humor in something like Ghostbusters (maybe not the best example) which seemed much more reactive and in the moment. Thanks everyone! To clarify, are you talking about the acting, or the dialogue itself, or a combination? When I think of Ghostbusters I think of dialogue that's timed very naturally and also sounds like real things a group of old friends would say to each other.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 21:17
|
|