MovieChat Forums > BeaSouth > Replies
BeaSouth's Replies
The internet seems to consistently call this the Hudson Ferry scene. Would that make sense considering the route the family was on? I’m not familiar with the area. It was a freaky scary scene though.
If it’s as meaningless and trivial such that all can ignore, why put it in at all? The downside is obvious, these trigger warnings will evolve over time. If I was an artist involved in a creative endeavor, I would not want some professor having the right to editorialize how the worldwide audience should interpret my art. If you don’t see the slippery slope, you’re not looking.
I don’t understand the motives of a bot program poster. Why would someone want to do something like this?
Spielberg’s movies repeatedly portray the absent or non-existent father. His art was meant to reflect his own experiences with his emotionally distant father and the combative marriage of his parents. This has been covered by many articles. For example, see https://danielmlehman.wordpress.com/2004/12/01/the-role-of-the-father-in-the-films-of-steven-spielberg/
Until he had his own children - well after CE3K - he marginalized or completely disregarded the role of fathers (and loved to show dysfunctional marriages) in his movie portrayals.
And yet Dreyfus’ character simply walked away from those kids without so much as a contemplative moment. For me this was a really terrible ending. It was all about the awe and wonder of this exciting first contact with extraterrestrials. Roy Neary’s last 36 hours with his kids was him creating terror and complete tumult in their lives. His daughter was like 2 years old. At the end of the final scene, there his is walking right past these Earthlings being returned after being taken 30-40 years earlier. He never once considers these implications on his own children.
Agree 100% with your reaction to the comment of @gabby_bm
I think you were looking at the wrong hand. The character’s ring finger on his left hand was definitely missing in the last scene and they made it obvious too
It was a little ridiculous suggesting those airborne soldiers were jumping out with rifles in their hands. Good luck holding a rifle when the chute opened and when you need to use your hands on the risers.
Her character was real tough when it came to writing speeding tickets against the corrupt cops but when it came to confronting them for real corruption, she just up and quit. It was a really weird character that could’ve been omitted and the movie would’ve been unaffected
It’s really bad. Cynical post-Viet Nam spy flick in which USSR characters are portrayed sympathetically while CIA brass are criminals specializing in extortion and murdering innocent people. Burt Lancaster is old and overweight and not believable. The writing and acting is typical Hollywood pretentious drivel. In one scene, Lancaster is in full on blackface and costumed as a hip African minister. It’s pretty cringeworthy when the director focuses on the fake pigmentation of his hand as he smiles and waves like a buffoon to some Black children. Oh, and the script is littered with lines like this: “You’re beautiful Jean. But sometimes you have the bad breath of priests.” WTF?
It was like watching a junior high film project. And just before that when Lancaster ducked down in the seat to make it appear from behind like he abandoned the car, he had his foot on the brake pedal illuminating the brake lights the whole time. Like the people following wouldn’t see that in the dark alley? It’s like the director wasn’t even trying.
Man, that was a pretty self-absorbed and narcissistic piece by Kilmer. His backhanded compliments of Cruise sound more like he was making fun. And this line was over the top in terms of a false sense of self-importance: “Another point of pride was flying in the jets. Though I was never really doing it, I learned the mechanics of operating the plane....”. Dude, you were a passenger
I’ve been watching old movies during COVID just as an escape from all the negative news and angry politics. So far I’ve been on a Paul Newman binge, a James Garner binge, and I’m now on Cary Grant. I like Grant because he’s light and witty and a gentleman in all his roles. The scenery and fashion and cars are just beautiful in this film. Grace Kelly’s is ridiculously pretty but they did use too much makeup on her in her first scenes with Grant. The story is entertaining enough to keep me watching. The way you described it was dead on: nice and pleasant enough.
The music sounded exactly like that in Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes movies
“I do it because I believe in the U.N. and Southeast Asia and it isn’t funny if your livelihood depends on the Panama Canal — and what about the British pound? And as long as they’re places like Siberia you’ll find Lew Harper on the job.”
I get he was trying to say something nonsensical but, this was so fabricated and scripted it was the point at which I was done with this movie.
He actually took $800 from the $10,000 which was the amount of his expenses according the what he told Iris Devereaux just a couple of scenes earlier
The ending is contrived. It was one of those mysteries where you don’t see how the star detective makes his deductions; instead, he simply tells you in dialogue at the end. It’s a little too convenient that way but, the movie was entertaining. It’s cool to see mid-70’s clothes, cars, and decor. Watching a 17-year old Melanie Griffith was also cool. She wasn’t the greatest actress but, you can see why casting people were so interested in her. I’d say you should watch it.
When Inspector Grandpierre returns her husband’s belonging to her, they included a wallet with 4,000 francs. Accounting for the conversion rate and inflation, that is about $6,800 in 2020. That could purchase and “array of outfits” perhaps