MovieChat Forums > johnmiller > Replies
johnmiller's Replies
Do you realize that he's a fictional character? Probably not!
Like way too many movies from the 1980's, they had to beat their point into the ground. So, of course, a student "has" to die, and the Headmaster "has" to be a sociopath.
I consider the 1980's to be where the permanent decline of film began. And, considering this film, it is ironic, since it was the decade that crushed individualism underfoot, and let corporations completely dictate that films were manufactured, instead of being created.
This is demonstrated here since, while there are so many great aspects to this film, this 1980's film shows again where filmmakers stopped trusting their audiences, and felt they had to beat them over the head to "make their point."
The melodramatic aspects of this seriously hurt it for me.
There are a LOT of great jokes in here, though. Some of the best are the ones that are almost Easter Eggs, where you have to pay attention to see them.
My favorite is probably the boy lying asleep with a copy of Jean-Paul Satre's "No Exit."
It'll be entertaining when you need a cop some day!
Trying too hard for tragedy, without earning it in the writing.
Movies on film are shot with the sound separate. They are combined on the release prints. So, the large-format film of 65mm is just the image, no sound. The sound was recorded on tape. When the release print was made, the combined print was 70mm, which accommodated the picture and up to six tracks of sound.
I went through it at 1/4 speed in high definition. Pretty impressive, I thought!
I think that's the point: Neither side is "good." They both have members consumed by hate.
I'm guessing that the TCM staffers just try to randomly grab trivia tidbits off of whatever blogs, websites, etc. So, I wouldn't go too much by what anyone on TCM says. With Robert Osborne gone, it's better to just skip the commentary and go right to the movie.
Did you know that you don't have to watch it?
Celebrities want you to "know" them. That's why they share so much of themselves with fans. It drives people to buy more tickets, purchase more books, etc. Trust me, very few of them would take a moment's offense.
Even if you're Andy Griffith? ;-)
Agreed. Obviously, something went VERY wrong with David!
I personally thought it was definitely a missed opportunity: 1.) To not use MUTHUR more than a non-descript computer voice, just telling the crew standard data. What was great about "Alien" was that MUTHUR was simply following programmed orders, but the audience was challenged about whether they thought the computer was malicious, or even HAL 9000-like evil/psychotic/whatever. 2.) I personally don't think MUTHUR sounded like the original MUTHUR. I think they could've Autotuned this actress' voice or something to get it closer. As someone who is fascinated at the prospect of Artificial Intelligence, in both real life and in the movies, I was disappointed, especially when this sounded like something very cool to be in the movie.
More revenue for Fox, the producers, the filmmakers, etc. I think it is also because Ridley Scott has strayed pretty fully into George Lucas territory, where he wants to endlessly tinker with his previous creations.
My take is that David is a full-on psychotic who can seemingly love Shaw one second, then cut her open the next.
As anti-Arab and anti-Muslim as this movie is, the book is supposedly worse.
The Jews should have been happy about having millions of their people spared from further annihilation. Instead, they demanded a state and got it.
John McCain's brother? Hilarious! Next, we'll be hearing from John McCain's manicurist.
Both Hanks and Newman are incredibly wrong for their roles. Absolute miscasting. It's interesting, because both Daniel Craig and Jude Law are absolutely perfect in their roles!
Hanks just plain, flat out not play a ruthless killer like this. Newman isn't believable in his role either.