MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade

Ace_Spade (7984)


They're gonna kill Willow, aren't they? Has anybody here seen it and have an honest review? Overview of the Show Really good, some flaws (SPOILERS) Jared Leto cursed? What happens when he dies? (SPOILERS) One good thing? Movie snack preference Favourite and Least Favourite Characters? I liked it a lot View all posts >


JoeyReview and Allaby give me what seem like measured responses to the film. But, yes, I know there are a lot of trolls about. It's one of the absolute tightest-written film scripts I've seen - in my opinion. There's no fat on it. Everything is perfectly in place. I didn't care for Miami Vice, either, and I was really disappointed because I'm a huge fan of Heat and Collateral, and when I saw Miami Vice I was just kinda bored. I do know a couple people who love it, and I'm wondering if I want to try viewing it again - at least just giving the first few minutes a shot. I feel such a missed opportunity seeing deadthreads, too, because these are users who like talking about film, and it's too bad that they didn't leap over. I like Moviechat, but I do wish it was a little more vibrant. I still rip on IMDb for scuttling their boards. Movies like Collateral - smart movies, good scripts - recognize that they don't need to show every resolution to every character in the film. We don't need to go to the funerals of the dead characters. We don't need to see the dating life of Max and the prosecutor. We don't need to see what happened to Jason Statham's sinister agent character. The central ideas of the film are fulfilled and explored, Max's character arc is complete, and the main story is over. Don't stick around for ages explaining the long process of Max dealing with cops and lawyers. Although, now that I think about it, a bolder, better Max wasting no trying to finally establish his limo "experience" company while being hounded by cops and lawyers, AND trying to get a couple dates in with Annie is a movie I would watch. That'd be a BOLD idea for a sequel, too, going from an action-thriller with philosophical overtones to a legal drama/slice of life. A handful of thoughtful, fun, interesting people with a great love for movies and impeccable taste. Also, a LOT of people who seem to come here to yell at each other about politics. Of course, those of us who love the Marx Bros. know better than to argue. If they don't like our principles, well, we've got others. It depends on what you mean by "best movie" and whether you're rating the film based on the film's strengths or based on how well the actor takes on multiple roles. Let me start by saying that your choice of Dr. Strangelove sprang to my mind immediately, and somebody else on the boards mentioned Adaptation, which is top-grade, as well. Here are my contributions: I'll add Monty Python's films to the growing list. My personal favourite is The Meaning of Life, but I know for most people it's The Life of Brian. If you count the Lord of the Rings trilogy as one, big film, then I might go with that (John Rhys Davies and Lawrence Makoare double up at various points in the trilogy). Technically, they're multiple films, but they are one story. The Muppet Movie features Muppeteers working a whole slew of characters each, and it's excellent. Who doesn't love the Muppets? Those are the ones that spring to my mind, anyway. A great explanation of that aspect of the screenplay. All the "I Ching" stuff is baked right in. It's one of the tightest scripts I've seen. I'm a little bummed out that OP is a dead account. I want to point out that we don't need to see the aftermath because of course Max got cleared. Did the cops arrest him and prosecute? Who's going to prosecute him? The DA? In order, I'd say... Phoebe - season one, she's a bit spacey, kooky, and quirky, and very much a weird hippy. Season ten, she's a bit spacey, kooky, and quirky, and more or less a weird hippy, but she got married. Rachel & Chandler - interestingly, I think both do a lot of maturing over the series. Rachel goes from somebody who has no life skills to a career woman. Chandler is a commitment-phobic manchild who turns into a loving husband/father. While their personalities stay similar, they grow and change as people. Joey - a charming ladies' man with a bit of an edge, sporting leather jackets and a love-'em-and-leave-'em mentality turns into a lovable teddy bear with rented brain cells. Monica - she was always Type-A, but at first she was neurotic and quirky; by the end of the show she is borderline obsessive-compulsive and a crazy neat-freak. Ross - people dislike Ross, I think, because of his later seasons and the changes made to his character. In the first few seasons, he's probably the most mature of the bunch, and by the end he's the least mature. Season one Ross has wit and is a bit of a hapless romantic. Season ten Ross is a petty dork. Fair enough, but the same could be said of 300. That's nowhere near historically inaccurate, and forget "glossing over" aspects of Spartan culture that were repugnant, they made a big point of "freedom" (when the Spartans kept slaves) and mocking Athenians for being "boy lovers" (when pederasty was hardly unknown on Sparta - historically). I like my history books to be accurate. Movies...I'd rather they not spread misinformation, but sometimes they're just for fun. An excellent primary source; then we can assume that Stoker put a lot of thought into it and any re-dating errors in the film are likely the results of a lack of similar research on the account of the screenwriters and/or Coppola. A very good point, and I was mostly talking about the intended portrayal, not the actual portrayal. Stoker made medical errors, not a character who was deliberately a bad doctor. Interestingly, if I were adapting Dracula, and trying to be faithful to the book, I'd probably tweak aspects of Helsing and Seward to make them more medically-sound, because I think that would fit the intention, although not the facts. Sorry, that should have read "portrayed expertise" being vampire hunting. We read about his fighting vampires, not diseases, and only have Seward's vote of confidence (which I think we're meant to take as legit) that Van Helsing is an accomplished physician. Now, I did forget that tidbit of information that you bring up, and upon a close examination of the passage you refer to, I believe you are correct and Van Helsing has not encountered vampires previously to the novel's narrative. The only slight push-back I will offer is that Prof. Van Helsing is presented as a better physician than Seward, and has so quickly adapted to the knowledge of the existence of vampires that he is an almost overnight expert. I also would suggest (unless you have more quotes?) that he seems to have read up extensively on vampires - perhaps even prior to the novel. So that, while he hasn't fought anything or confirmed their existence before the narrative, he might possess vampire fighting knowledge already? I think I'm mixing up the book and various adaptations where Lucy opens the windows. In any case, Van Helsing's prescriptions and methods should have been successful but for a lack of compliance, whether the source of that error was Lucy herself or her mother. I feel like if I ever see you type in standard-issue caps-&-lowercase I will start looking for other fulfilled signs from the Book of Revelation. I do think it's interesting that your opinion of this film was shifted by Burton's Ed Wood film. It's cool how that kind of thing can happen where one work of art or life experience alters something else you're taking in. There are some movies that are fairly bland and innocuous to most people, but probably wring tears out of others because of some outside association. View all replies >