MovieChat Forums > Axisunbound12 > Replies
Axisunbound12's Replies
the short answer is: the didn't know how to write the character well.
The teacher in Election (1999). Reality hit him hard.
Well, I'm gay, but I do like it. I'm not typically into romcoms or movies like this, tbh, I prefer horror and sci/fi, so this is a departure for me. It's a fun movie, that follows a typical sports-movie formula, but is better done than most.
Speaking as a liberal, and a gay, I liked it well enough. But the pacing might be too slow for some people. There's only one scene that's a little weak (though other people seem to enjoy it), and that's the scene where Elio's father explains way too much what Elio should be feeling (and by extension, what we the audience should be feeling about what we have just seen). It's a fine movie. My guess is, if you ever had a fleeting affair with someone and wondered "what if" the movie will probably resonate, gay or straight.
Kinda of, yeah. But what I got out of it, was that Edward was a narcissist and he wanted the kind of status he saw and envied in Bruce Wayne.
"I am happy that ANY iteration was made, as I love all the movies, except for H:Resurrection ( a freakin cesspool of a thing)"
Hated it too until recently. There's no accounting for taste, but I found it fun on rewatch BECAUSE it's bad. This sequel is solid, yet nowhere near as entertaining as Resurrection. The movie's audaciously disrespectful attitude toward Michael Myers no longer strikes me as sacrilege, because most of the other sequels are bad too - our beloved killer has long since lost any shred of dignity. It's Abbot And Costello meet Michael Myers.
I might do the same thing with a marathon. Halloween I, II, and to a lesser extent, Halloween (2018), are consistent in terms of tone. The fact that Laurie is Michael's sister wouldn't be common knowledge anyway, as the information was originally sealed by the courts, and few would be privy to it.
That's incorrect. The young gay boy and his dad, and the sheriff, and kid that's being babysat...not negatively portrayed. Even the boyfriend who gets pinned to the wall is only mildly annoying at best. And look - the douchebag boyfriend isn't even killed.
It's not just that he was unattractive, it's that she had to put up a fight to make him stop. Sorry, but....no. That character is simply not meant to be sympathetic.
"Halloween 3"
That movie is an absolute blast! I'm glad its gained a following in the intervening years. It's the most John Carpenter-feeling horror movie that wasn't actually directed by John Carpenter.
I'm absolutely thrilled that everyone is so hyped up about a new Halloween movie, as a long-time fan. I'm definitely not trying to spoil anyone's fun or tell anyone they're wrong for having a different opinion. Just my two cents.
The fat guy put his disgusting lips on an unwilling female but was thankfully shut down quickly. It's at the very least sexual assault, and if a gay man did this to you, you'd probably support my contention.
Michael is a homophobe. He's part of Trump's America, which is typical of 60+ white males. He needed to be put in his place by three women.
So you guys equate your masculinity with the murderous, cold-blooded antics of a psychopathic killer who stalks babysitters and feel personally attacked when a movie takes a hardline stance against such a thing?
"ditched two guys". Are you kidding me? One was an unfaithful boyfriend who ruined her expensive phone and the other was a comically unsuccessful rapist.
Agree with some of your points, although I felt that H20 was a much more satisfying ending overall, particularly the last scene. The second act in this movie is definitely the weakest part and its depiction of Michael is not completely consistent with the character from the original. It would have been nice to see him stalking Laurie's daughter and her friends as they're walking down the street, as that part is clearly meant to recall a similar scene with Laurie, Annie, and Linda.
But overall, I felt it was a solid slasher sequel.
My problem with it is that it does not have much of a notion of how to create suspense, which is what made the original so great. Another is that Michael in this movie is too similar to the Michael in the Zombie movies - he's a super-size badass motherfucker killer with a big motherfucking knife -he'll walk right up to you and fucking end your shit in the messiest way possible. It's not the same as part one, where he's just a regular-size guy who walks and behaves oh so strangely, hovering just at the edge of the frame, waiting with the patience of a panther for his prey - that's infinitely creepier. Along the same lines, the classic themes of the franchise are not deployed in a coherent or intelligent fashion. Playing THE theme as Michael walks into a police SUV is less than thrilling, even faintly ridiculous.
But it's a solid movie. Just not scary, in my humble opinion.
Guys, I hate to sound rude, but this has always happened since I first started posting back when these boards were on IMBD in 1999. It's the internet????
They should have hired you as a technical consultant.
The Mike White commentary on the television cut alone makes it worth it. The movie is more bearable with his discussion playing over it. Super informative and frequently very amusing. Plus, I can focus on the imagery, which is frequently lovely, and not all on the terrible dialogue and story.
The tonal difference is just too jarring. The first one has an almost documentary quality. This movie is a tacky seventies fantasia.