pepetoony's Replies


You really are. No one's contacted me yet, btw. Fragile snowflake! She was completely devoid of any charisma and after her character appeared, I checked out. Spare me the flat affect. Take a shot every time they describe something or someone as "genius" (massive violent eye roll). Bruh, get a blog. That was the creepiest part of this movie for me--or saddest, really. Every time they show that older boyfriend I can't help but feel like he's a loser (even though he has a Ferrari). There was one chick in my high school whose older boyfriend would come and pick her up from school every day and I remember it being weird. The last bell would ring, we'd all file out into the parking lot and there he was waiting! Every day. This was in the mid to late '90s. She wasn't 16 though--she was a senior and he'd just graduated one or two years prior so the age difference wasn't that huge, however the whole notion of having to go and pick up your girlfriend from high school is an odd one. Yea that part didn't make much sense to me...$80 was a good amount of bribe money. Toss in another twenty and dude could've bought himself a Nintendo Entertainment System! I don't know how he got it, but if you look closely at the slips of paper underneath his alarm clock, one of them says "Mercedes" with her phone number on it. It's a bizarre notion to me that moviemakers have to renegotiate the rights to music tracks each and every time they re-release their already-finished movie on a new form of media. Like, what? BROWNIES! Mom was making brownies! UH! How CRUDE! Mercedes finds it perfectly acceptable to phone someone's house at 11:15pm. This was not a thing we did in the '80s, as it made every damn phone in the house ring! Socially unacceptable, Mercedes! I have it on blu-ray. And yea--the woman they used as 'old' Elise definitely could've been cast better! Or at the very least they could've given her some contact lenses that matched Jane Seymour's eye color! Yea, in the director commentary he talks about how he used different film stock for the modern shots vs the 1912 shots. But still, there's a scene in the hotel (set in 1912) where it keeps switching back and forth between showing Richard's face (which is perfectly sharp) and Elise's face which is all blurry. Both were filmed with the same Fuji stock so it's definitely a camera lens decision. I just watched it again--it's the scene right after Richard wakes up on the outdoor porch chair and goes up to Elise's hotel room. The blur effect is just overly jarring/obvious because it ONLY happens when there's a closeup of Elise and the camera keeps cutting between her blurry shots and his sharp ones. I don't think it can be explained away as being the way Richard is viewing her either because in some of the shots we're looking over his shoulder at blurry Elise, so it's not as if we're seeing her through his eyes. I really think they just got a bit heavy-handed with the Vaseline in an effort to make her look etherial! There's nothing wrong with that but it becomes super obvious when it's interlaced with other, razor-sharp shots. That number seemed high to me too. And the $1.25 haircuts seemed too low for 1968. Think of all the haircuts he could've gotten with that $1700/mo! He could've used one. My hair receded during a time of stress in my life and it never came back. I wish! That said, I think Tom's wig/hairpiece in this movie is ridiculous looking. I've never seen a 22yo with hair that awful. It was distracting. I guess I'm the odd man out because I find his acting over-the-top in this. Although EVERYTHING about this movie is over-the-top. It's a bit much. My only confusion is: If Elise was purely a figment of Richard's imagination then what was the whole deal with the old lady showing up to his play in the beginning with the pocket watch and the "Come back to me" message? And then Richard does indeed find the photo of that same woman ("aged" Elise) when he goes to the library. He wasn't dreaming about any of that stuff. Idk...this movie hurts my brain! He was warned by his old professor that going back in time via self-hypnosis would be extremely draining. He wasn't lying! When Richard went to speak with his old professor about whether or not time travel was possible, the professor said that he himself had tried it once in Venice and that he would never attempt it again because of how draining it was. And the professor said he'd never even fully achieved it! So I think that was the setup for what ultimately happens to Richard, who did manage to achieve it. It drained the life out of him. Ultimately they had to end the film somehow! I personally love the way this movie ends. Oh damn, you went deep with this lol. All very valid & interesting points! I guess I took the movie more at face value but you're right--all of the "past" scenes exist solely in Richard's hypnotized mind so Elise could just be a completely made up/romanticized version of whatever he dreamt up whilst staring at that photo on the wall. Well good! This makes me less angry at the filmmaker/cameraman for that creative decision lol