MovieChat Forums > mudsharkbytes > Replies
mudsharkbytes's Replies
One of the worst trailers I ever saw was for “Animal House.” I’m glad I saw it in spite of the trailer.
Larry could probably quite easily demonstrate intimate knowledge of enough details from the book to prove it was his work, in much the same way Margaret Keane proved she was the “Big Eyes” artist, and not her husband, Walter. Margaret wouldn’t have been able to fluidly and quickly respond to questions, nor could she have duplicated Larry’s style if asked to write a few paragraphs.
I know next to nothing about Jewish culture and, for the most part, I’m irreligious.
The thick slice of Hebrew culture & Yiddish in this movie did not detract from it one iota to me because the religion was not really the point, the trials & tribulations Larry was undergoing was the point. With few changes the movie could’ve been set with a Catholic family and still worked.
Many movies are steeped in cultural and historical / artistic traditions that I, and a majority of the audience, have absolutely no experience in such as “The Name of the Rose,” or “Twelve Years a Slave,” to name a few. If the filmmaker is competent, and you can hardly get more competent than the Coen brothers, then these things won’t matter. They certainly didn’t here for me.
Quite the opposite, in fact. I found the Jewish traditions depicted in this movie to be fascinating.
Virtually every scene in the movie is constructed from humorous content, even the darkest ones - It’s just not the belly laugh kind of humor you may be used to.
There’s so many, but another one nobody’s mentioned is when the detectives come to the door looking for Arthur Larry tells them “we’re sittin’ Shiva” he goes on to tell them “we’re bereaved”. When one of the detectives asks “who died?” Larry says “my wife’s... it’s complicated.”
The way EVERYBODY keeps saying “Sy Albeman?” followed by “Hester is barely cold!”
Actually, it’s the casual way she walks in and asks him “Honey, did you talk to Sy today?” As if, had he gotten the new from Sy, he’d just be sitting there calmly grading his papers instead of going apeshit.
In my opinion, at present, this is the last truly great movie the Coen’s have made. Not that the movies they’ve made since aren’t also excellent - they’re incapable of making a bad movie in that sense - but “A Serious Man” is the last one which, like Fargo or Barton Fink, stands up to repeated viewings and has the kind of content that will keep your brain chewing on it for a long time after the movie ends.
When a movie sticks in my head like this, that means I’m still being entertained long after it ended, and that is what makes a movie truly great.
He passed Clive because he decided he needed the money and, for what it’s worth, keeping the money and not changing the Clive’s grade was not honorable.
What’s interesting is the catalyst for deciding to keep the money was the legal fees he was taking on trying to defend his brother Arthur who’d, apparently, gone into the “North Dakota.”
As I pointed out in another thread, if you follow the logic, such as it is, in this movie, Arthur is responsible for setting off the entire chain of events that end the movie by going into the “North Dakota,” despite the fact that, like Larry, he claims he “didn’t do anything.”
Larry decided to change Clive’s grade from an F to a C- because the legal fees to defend Arthur finally pushed him over the edge compelling him to keep the bribe. It’s inferred this sin is what set off the cataclysmic events of a tornado bearing down upon his son and a call from his doctor inferring some kind of dire diagnosis from his x-rays simultaneously.
If Arthur’d just stayed out of the “North Dakota,” the rest of Larry’s life would’ve probably been significantly different. There were signs his relationship with his wife were on the mend, he was probably going to get tenure, and Sy was finally out of the picture.
Maybe Arthur really was the dybbuk!
If Arthur’d only stayed out of the “North Dakota” Larry wouldn’t have felt compelled to change Clive’s grade due to the outrageous legal fees, setting off the cataclysmic events of the finale.
This is interesting.
This is exactly what happens when you read a graphic novel (comic). The border between the panels represents a duration of time, which can be anything from nanoseconds to millennia. The mind creates motion and accepts the distorted passages of time.
It would be nice if more filmmakers explored this technique - very effective.
I loved the first episode. Thought it was one of the most audacious things I'd ever seen. Didn't like how the guys wife turned her back on him afterwards, though, because he did, or thought he was doing a noble thing, and was pretty much forced to under pressure.
Technically, you're right. Absent a camera in the room showing him masturbating AND his computer screen simultaneously, there is no proof. Any kind of split screen gimmickry is not proof of what was on his specific screen when he was getting off.
I hate to say this though, but even if it was proved he was spanking his monkey to pictures of kids, his ultimate punishment was WAY in excess of his crime, because, like it or not, his was a thought crime. He didn't hurt anybody else physically. He found sexually charged images of children stimulating and wanked off looking at them. It's doubtful he paid anybody to produce the material as he worked washing dishes and his only means of transportation was a bike, I it's a stretch to say money changed hands and he was supporting an industry.
If you ask me, the people manipulating everybody - the ones causing all the dancing, whoever they were, had really twisted motives because with that kind of power they should've been directing their skills towards the bastards PRODUCING the child porn. Take THEM down and ruin them, not that kid who was in serious need of therapy, not having his life destroyed.
You are free to do whatever you choose for whatever reason, however, Shannon's comments have zero to do with the splendid job he did in this movie.
Along the same lines, Kevin Stacey's rancid behavior does not really have anything to do with his acting chops, which are amazing, either. I don't have to like his behavior to like his acting. Continuing House of Cards without him is akin to serving veal Parmesan without the veal.
In our reactionary snowflakey society today we've forgotten how to deal with the fact that creative people have opinions and foibles and often behave badly. So Shannon said something you disagree with. So what? It has no bearing on the artistic qualities of his acting or this movie, both of which, by the way, are excellent.
I dunno, maybe because it's quality filmmaking? Great cinematography? A story line with nuance? Maybe because they aren't zombies, they're rabid? Maybe because the underlying theme of the movie is about the short time we have to be parents to our children and how important it is to be there for them because we can never recover the time we've lost?
Maybe those are a few of the reasons.
Except these weren't really zombies, they were infected with a virus or something. They were rabid.
I think the explanation that the truck had some goo on it that didn't get washed off and it got in the deer is the best explanation I've heard. It certainly makes the most sense, because if the deer was rabid before the truck hit it it would've just stood right up and started to attack, not wait for a minute or so then stand up all white-eyed.
Yes, the movie was as much about parenting relationships with children as it was about zombies. The main protagonist was struggling with being a father and a husband, the pregnant woman and her husband were just starting a family, hell, even the evil business man at the end was just trying to get home to see his mom.
And it was all nicely wrapped up when the little girl singing the song she'd learned for her father, Aloha Oi, was ultimately what saved their lives.
A+ is right.
Technically, Train to Busan is also about some kind of rabies, not zombies.
See the remake of Dawn of the Dead for the answer to your question.