MovieChat Forums > CookieDragon83 > Replies
CookieDragon83's Replies
Yeah I also thought that was a bit silly. Despite the fact he was handcuffed he still could have overpowered her if he tried grabbing the gun or something. But then again, she was the only one who knew where Anna was so I can understand why he complied.
After Detective Loki takes Anna to hospital, there is a scene where he is sitting on the hospital bed reading the newspaper. The headline reads "Barry Milland aka Alex Jones reunited with family after 26 years".
Holly previously tells Keller that Alex isn't actually her nephew and that he was the first child she and her husband abducted.
When does it explain it? I don't remember that part either.
Yeah, totally. I mean, the whole beach was turning into quicksand, moving about a foot per second, so they didn't have time to hang around. There was also nothing to throw for him to grab. And the fact that they literally did not have time to stop and grieve because they were in the midst of a deadly game......yeah, totally cold of them!
That's exactly what I thought, but then i thought maybe it wouldn't be such a clever idea as the acid would still pour under there given the pressure and angle at which it was leaving those sprinklers.
But also, I don't understand how they were able to walk across the ground without melting their shoes and feet...
Are you obsessed with penises? You've used the word three times.
When Becky saw Hunter's tattoo and said "Dan could never say the words 'I love you'. 143" and Hunter immediately caved and admitted she had an affair with him - that's when I rolled my eyes. There was and had been no inkling of it coming out as far as Hunter was concerned. Yeah, Becky figured it out but surely Hunter's response would have been to first play dumb. Generally the immediate reaction is to fob it off; make Becky believe she's paranoid or something, and then explain the tattoo as some other meaning. Perhaps later in the film when her conscious is really eating at her she could admit to it. I dunno, but that's how I would have written it as that's more realistic.
Sorry but I have to correct you on number one - the OP didn't say it was a plot 'hole', they said plot 'event'. I think you misread the subject title. No biggie 🙂
That's a good point. I just re-watched that scene and, yeah, we don't see the lower ladders fall. I suppose it's presumed they got hit by the falling upper ladders? I mean, that would male sense.
Would you mind elaborating?
Kiri was born from Grace's Na'vi body, not human body.
Also, this is only the first film in which we meet Kiri. She's still young so maybe she'll have a much bigger and more important plot later down the line that will explain everything.
"Nothing but Avatar movies"? There's only two more (or three, can't remember).
This is not a superhero film.
If you really don't like these types of films then don't watch them. What's the problem?
OH FFS! I find it ironic that the indigenous are shouting the loudest about how 'racist' this is all the while seemingly forget that the narrative of the story is on their side. I don't understand what the issue is. So Cameron used a mostly white cast. Yeah, and? If it were mostly black people would still say the same thing. I mean, it's not like we actually see the colour of the actors' skin, so what's the problem? If you can't see past the actors' skin then no wonder you missed the point of the film entirely!
In the article it asks why not just do a film about the existing indigenous and how they're treated, etc. Well, mainly because millions of people are not going to pay to sit through a 3 hour documentary about it. This film entertains whilst teaching in a way that's relatable and hits homes. It gives a very powerful message about humans being the destroyer of all things, wrecking the balance, greed, etc. This is one of the reasons Cameron wanted to make these films.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Do people really still believe this? 🙄
It's been 7 years since you posted this. Dare I ask if you've grown up yet?
Believe it or not I do completely understand where you're coming from. In fact, on another thread I was making the same argument you are now when someone said that "all women with short hair made them look ugly" and he/she had "no idea why women do that to themselves"! But in this case I really do not believe this person meant it as 'fact'. Also, they didn't insist their opinion was fact. Too many people do construct their sentences in a way that implies it's a fact but we all know that typically that is not what's intended.
Why does it matter to me? Because I hate undue rudeness.
This thread may have dragged on longer because of me, true, but you didn't have to respond.
Either way, I just believe that certain messages can still get across without rudeness and name-calling. But that's just me!
Oh I see. I can't believe I didn't get that! 🤦🏻♀️
To be honest, I think having them look like normal vulnerable and innocent children made them more sinister simply because it's not obvious at face value about who and what they are, etc.
Oh for god's sake. The poster was only stating that to them this is the best movie ever. So? What does it matter to you? There was nothing about it that made it 'childish' or 'uneducated'. That fact that you felt the need to respond to an opposing opinion (as I presume you don't like the film) in such a passive-aggressive and insulting way says so much more about you than it does them.
I'm not clicking on any links. Can you just tell me what your reply was?
That's a different link.