MovieChat Forums > forlorn_rage > Replies
forlorn_rage's Replies
What's wrong with being part of the LGBTQ community? None those women are any less the women that they are than their heterosexual counterparts. That's nonsense.
[quote] in the book we see much of what's in her mind, and the fact is that while she's going out and picking cotton and running lumber mills with convict labor and ignoring all her society's rules for women, she never questioned the idea that women should be Great Ladies. It was just circumstances preventing her from being submissive and dependent and ladylike, and occasionally she even felt guilty about her failure to be what she thought a woman should be. And then she went out and shot a union soldier in the face or something. [/quote]
That's not entirely true. Before the war, Scarlett was full of criticism for Pre-war Southern society, particularly with how women were expected to behave in order to catch a husband and always being encouraged to hide how their intelligence and letting their husbands take credit for all their plantation and household management, in order not to appear "unladylike."
I disagree hugely. I don't know about Oliver or The Hurt Locker, but some of the other ones including Rocky, Marty, and Ordinary People are definitely way better than The Shape of Water.
Really? I heard this was a very sought after role and many actresses were considered for the part before Irene Dunne was cast...
Uh no, I'll have to heavily disagree. If anyone was always "angry and hateful," it was Roseanne in the later seasons. She was abominable post-Tom Arnold years! Ann-Marie was actually very chill and laidback in comparison.
I loved when Leon snapped that cleaning all the lard out of Diner oven(?) was like out "cleaning one of [Roseanne's] arteries." Lol!
I totally agree with her treatment of Bev and Fred! She is awful and horrific to them! I just got done watching the episode where Bev gives each of her daughters $10,000.
Then, the girls make her negotiate just to be able to move into the same city as them! Bev could move wherever she damn well pleased, especially after getting out of a terrible marriage. And she sure shouldn't have to seek permission from her ungrateful bitch daughters, especially after giving them so much money.
Hell, Dan acted very reasonable about the whole thing and even Darlene, of all people, didn't complain about having to share a room with Bev, so she definitely deserved better from her own damn daughters.
Ann Wedgeworth was also in the [i]The Scarecrow[/i] with Al Pacino and Gene Hackman. Definitely worth checking out!
The Huxtables weren't the first upper class black family. The Jeffersons were. If Bill Cosby is under the impression he made his show the first depiction of a rich black family, he's sadly delusional.
You haven't seen 'Holiday Affair,' have you? Corey is actually quite good at subtly inserting comedy into his performances. Didn't take Hitchcock's direction for that.
[quote]Yeah that's a bit psycho to enjoy watching people burn to death. I did not like that [/quote]
Oh my god, that was a horrible sight to watch... And it wasn't even necessary! I absolutely HATED Daenarys for looking so damn proud watching those soldiers burn to death!
Yes, someone like Cersei is cruel, but at least people acknowledge it and don't try to sugarcoat it! I'm tired of people constantly sucking up to Daenarys when she's spoiled, entitled bitch who just happens to be Mary Sue Squared with plot armour to the nth degree!
[quote] Wow, you can write a lot while managing to say absolutely nothing. [/quote]
Wow, more evidence of you being an arrogant prick. You just did *exactly* what you accused me of doing. Anyway, you had your chance to argue back and failed to come up with any strong evidence for your claims about someone like Joffrey "being capable of love" (ha!). I'm not going to bother to waste anymore time on you.
Point one, you're getting offtopic by talking about book Joffrey. Whereas most (if not all these posts) are referring to Show Joffrey.
Two: while there is a difference between sociopath and psychopath, it's minuscule at best, not "big."
Three: I didn't need to take anymore time to think about what I was going to post to you. I stand by what I said before. There is evidence that (Show) Joffrey is very much a psychopath in the sense:
1. He loves no one, but himself. Even the person he arguably has the strongest relationship with, his mother, he isn't above looking down on or threatening her without batting an eyelash. Whereas if he was a sociopath, he might've at least hesitated or shown some feeling for her now and then- which never did.
2. While not terribly bright, he can be very devious when he needs to be. Such as misleading the crowd into thinking he was going to grant mercy to Ned Stark, when he never had any such intention. Or secretly ordering the killing of his bastard half siblings and making it look as if his mother may been responsible.
Are we talking about the same person here? The same boy who ordered the murders of innocent children because they just happened to be the bastards of his horny, irresponsible lout of a "father," delighted in killing and torturing prostitutes, and got off on showing Sansa her father's head on a spike after viciously humiliating and executing him?
This little bastard you claim is "capable of love"? NO. Joffrey wasn't as bad as Ramsey. But, that does NOT mean he wasn't a vicious bastard, psychopath, and a hideous monster all the same.
[i][–] ninthcentury 2 years ago
I think he's referring to the scene in which the horse takes a spill over a fence, iirc.
Marnie, an experienced horsewoman, also goes down with the horse. This isn't exactly uncommon in cross-country riding, especially if you're going to jump solid fences instead of knock-down jumps like what you see in stadium jumping.
But she gets up and the horse doesn't. Without looking at the leg, not touching or feeling for a broken bone, or having a vet come look at it as any sane person would do, she flies into irrationality and starts screaming for a gun to put it out of its misery, then executes the poor thing when it might just have bowed a tendon.
Now, I get that Marnie is innately hysterical. It's what makes her the nut she is, and what kept me from liking her even a little. But shooting a horse when you think it might have a broken leg, without even looking to see if you're right? That's pathetic.
For the record, one of my mares kicked another mare and brought her to the ground, so I've seen a horse I love in physical pain, but I certainly wasn't ready to execute the poor animal if there had been hope. Am I an experienced horsewoman, yes, but I certainly wouldn't put myself into a vet's role (even though I was a nurse as well) unless the nearest vet had been a hundred miles off.
If someone calls this a plot hole, it really isn't; it's just bad writing.[/i]
I completely agree with you. I only hope that nothing bad actually happened to the horse in real life. And it was purely excellent editing and some special effects that made the horse look hurt.
[i][–] DarrienBlack 5 years ago
Agreed on her being miscast physically but was also surprised that she didn't try to sound like Tippi vocally, Tippi has/had an airy and sexy way of speaking and Sienna didn't even attempt to duplicate it at all.
It's even more noticeable considering how hard Toby Jones tried to become the Hitchcock character.[/i]
Toby Jones is chillingly fantastic! I felt so awful for him that he wasn't even given a decent co-star to
^THIS!!! Toby Jones is chillingly fantastic! I felt so awful for him that he wasn't even given a decent co-star to
Not even 5 minutes passed, I felt like reaching in there, grabbing Miller by thee hair, and literally throwing her out of the movie (and preferably out of a window). How this bimbo keeps getting work is beyond me. Not particularly attractive, intelligent, interesting, and a GROSSLY incompetent "actress" (even that description is too kind for her).
I was reluctant to watch this film anyway b/c I prefer documentaries for real life incidences. I REALLY wish a documentary was made instead of a TV film.
[i][–] stenney 4 years ago
he started work on a script for this right after or even during "Psycho", and offered it to Grace Kelly. when the people of Monaco had a problem with their Princess playing a lying theif, she refused, besides still having an obligation to MGM. this then got shelved after she refused, and Hitch had no other project, so he went and did "The Birds", whisch was his first work with Tippi. after 3 or 4 other possible actresses for this role, Tippi accepted an offer. [/i]
^This makes sense as opposed to what so many others were saying that Grace Kelly was chosen over Tippi Hedren as Marnie.
Considering how obsessed Hitchcock became with Tippi Hedren, it didn't make sense to me that he would make "The Birds" with Hedren, turn back to Grace Kelly knowing it would be in vain, then suddenly (supposedly reluctantly) turn back to Hedren.
Kenny, even though you are not wrong about the time, perception, and the context of the film under which this extremely distasteful scene takes place, one thing overrules everything you have said in your post.
Mark gave his *word* that he would not force Marnie. It's not completely verbalized since it's a 60's film and the code hadn't been entirely abandoned up until this point. But, it is understood between Mark and Marnie what is being said and agreed upon.
Whatever benefit of a doubt we could've given Mark (only b/c of the time period & and before acknowledgment & existence marital rape as a legal concept) is dispelled by the above point. Mark gave his word, then callously *breaks* it.
On top of that, Mark apologizes after pulling off Marnie's nightgown, so he *knows* what he is doing isn't right. But, *still* proceeds to have his way with Marnie even seeing how still, expressionless, shocked & traumatized Marnie. Does he prefer unresponsive, motionless women for a sex partner? Boy, has *he* got issues!
[i] I liked the movie except for a few things.... The constant jabbering of the women. The dialog was too fast and quipped the entire movie. I was not crazy for the ending,,I know it was 1939 but I was proud of her for being strong and showing her daughter a woman can do it on her own. [/i]
Well, you have to remember that is what Mary wanted. Nowadays in a lot movies, characters have to forego wants and needs that seem consistent with the character's development for mostly political and audience agendas. In that situation character and story cease to become character and story and simply become a statement, which should be an addition to the character and story, not a substitution.
I used to mind the ending as well. But, because it was consistent with Mary and her character and it was something she wholeheartedly went after, I didn't mind it as much.
[i][–] mc_forever 6 years ago
I don't remember exactly since it's quite some time since I last watched this film, but Tess wants to take Chris back with her and she is saying to him "don't you want to come with me and go back home" and the child replies that he doesn't want to go anywhere with her.[/i]
Well, that much is obvious. Pretty much any casual viewer can figure that out if they pay attention to the film.
But, it would be nice if we could figure out *exactly* what was being said. Especially, the part where Katharine Hpeburn, the social worker exclaims, "Chris!" Chris runs upstairs and the social worker says, "I'm sure he didn't mean it." as a dejected Tess goes back home.