MovieChat Forums > spurtle467 > Replies
spurtle467's Replies
I wouldn't put this in the so bad it's good category of movies. It's not brilliant but it's one of those fun silly movies from the 80's and with an IMDB rating of 7.2, you must feel that is way too high if you consider this a bad movie? The theme tune is actually quite epic as well.
I'm from the UK, where we typically do not get to see many tornadoes, certainly nothing like in the midwest states of the USA, yet I'm still fascinated by tornadoes and is what I think led me to seeing Twister twice at the cinema at the time. One of only 2 movies I've done that with. That being said, I don't really rate the film that highly as I've grown up, it was more the excitement of having a big budget film about tornadoes come out, as a kid.
So yeah you don't have to be geographically connected to the area to be appealed by it and this applies to pretty much any film. People who have never been in space will be appealed by space films etc.
You needn't worry too much. If this was being remade today for an adult audience, chances are that they would choose to go with the black female lesbian sex scene angle over using the white man. In fact the white man may just be reserved for the bad guy parts, including replacing the hispanic thief for one.
Yes I'm aware of the mallet part but I wouldn't consider that murder. It's more assisted suicide. If they were killed against their will then I'd agree with you. It's what the two elderly members wanted and if anything it was merciful to that man's situation after the fall.
Our differences of opinion on the morality of what they did more or less reflects the reaction of the guests in the film to what they saw. So it goes to show that scene and what happened after wasn't wholly unrealistic.
While they had just witnessed the attempted suicides of 2 elderly members of the cult and would be right to feel shocked and alarmed by that, they had no immediate reason to feel their lives were under threat. The cult up to that point had shown no signs of hostility towards them. Some strange behaviour maybe but stuff that they could simply put down to cultural differences and traditions. They were otherwise welcoming and friendly towards the guests.
Once the suicides happened, I thought the mixed reactions that we saw from the guests seemed about fair enough. It garnered extreme reactions from some and less from others but I doubt any of them enjoyed what they saw or agreed with it. The extreme reaction came from the English couple, who were very vocal and wanted to leave like you are suggesting you would do. They were obviously then tricked into believing they would be taken away safely, although I have to admit my suspicions would be raised to the max if I was the girl, that my boyfriend had left without telling me.
That said, all this is in hindsight knowing they were all, barring one, killed by the cult by the end of the film. So it's easy to say what you would have done while already knowing the fates of these people, or going into this film knowing it's a horror and that it will more than likely turn out badly for everyone. Without this prior knowledge and being in their same shoes having witnessed that, I don't know if you'd automatically assume you'd be killed if you stuck around for much longer.
Maybe for some people. Obviously in the 2000's is where his popularity really started growing with commercial and critical hit film, one after the other. That's where you'd point to a specific moment if there was one. If I had to pick one myself, then The Departed. By the time you get to the early 2010s, he's got enough hit films and performances for you to look back on and determine him a modern day acting legend.
I don't know if you become a legend with just one moment. Titanic certainly will have raised his profile but he was still I think thought of as more sort of just a heartthrob then. His films and performances during the 2000s is when people started to really take note of him as a lead actor with universal appeal. Let's just say by the start of the 2000s he probably wasn't considered a legend, and by the end of it, he was.
I don't think the character is supposed to be transexual in the series, at least I don't remember that being referenced anywhere. I think they just expected you to believe that this obviously female born actor, is an adult male character. Of course it wasn't very convincing as it looked like a woman or young boy pretending to be a guy. It did hint at him being homosexual though with the mention of him staying in Naples with Max.
Because Dickie was breaking off their friendship. Tom was clearly upset about it and snapped when Dickie started taunting him. It didn't really come out of nowhere, at least not in the sense that it wasn't believable. He then subdued him by striking him with the oar to stop Dickie from killing him. The series had Dickie tell Tom he should spend more time by himself in a friendly way and Tom then suddenly kills him. That was less believable. If they wanted the intention to be that Tom offed him because he was jealous of the opulent lifestyle and didn't really care for Dickie, they could have played it up more. It seemed to me like Tom liked being around Dickie enough that that wouldn't have been his first thought. Dickie was so passive as well, he even asked Tom to help him while Tom was beating him to death. It made me laugh.
I thought they should have made more effort to have Tom look and sound different when he was interviewed by the inspector, pretending to be himself. He just sounded and acted the same way he does when pretending to be Dickie. I haven't read the books but isn't he supposed to be quite good at that sort of thing? At least make it more realistic that the inspector, who seemed pretty clued up, would fall for it. Instead he may as well have been interviewed by Inspector Clouseau at that moment.
As for the photo thing, the whole scenario just seemed so implausible. They even have a very vague, blurry picture of Dickie from the back in the newspaper. How do they not have a good picture of him by that stage from the front? It doesn't add up.
It was a woke choice and it backfired. It pulled me out of my viewing experience seeing someone looking like a boy dressed up as a man playing Freddie and expecting me to believe they are good friends with Dickie.
It was quite noticeably woke. As someone pointed out earlier on this post, they made sure to hit the quotas for POC compared to white people and it led to too many main characters in the film. This was one of many problems. I mean the script for this film really was dreadful and I get the impression they were so busy ticking boxes they neglected some of the more important aspects.
The Simpsons doesn't need reviving it just needs to be ended. With each new inferior additional series the legacy dies that little bit more. Enough damage has already been done, nothing can change that now. The only thing that can change is how much more damage.
Yes I seem to want to compare to the 1999 film as well. I haven't read the novel or seen any other adaptation but to me the movie more clearly outlines the characters' motivations and they come across a bit more believable and make for a more enthralling story.
In the show, the killing of Dickie by Tom comes across as a bit sudden and jarring because he is neither shown to be particularly infatuated with Dickie, nor shown to be especially psychotic up to that point that he would decide on the spot he was going to kill him. Obviously the film's Tom is infatuated with Dickie, so the killing is somewhat justified as he is upset Dickie doesn't want to be around him anymore and they get into a row.
I don't know, there are quite a few things in this show I don't really buy in terms of the characters. Marge doesn't like Tom from nearly the get go but then seems to warm to him towards the end when there is even more reason to be suspicious of him, due to Dickie having disappeared. The character of Freddie was badly cast and with the way he's portrayed I just don't buy that Dickie would even hang out with him. At least in the film you can see why Dickie and Freddie would hang out together. They encapsulate that rich playboy, self-entitled attitude.
The whole thing with Tom evading capture was also a big suspension of belief. They seem to want to put everybody's picture in the papers relating to the murder of Freddie Miles, apart from the person most closely connected to it, who has also gone missing. I mean really? It would have foiled Tom's plans immediately if they had. Then dressing up differently to the inspector to pretend to be someone else, while acting the same, talking the same, and still looking a bit the same, and getting away with it. OK.
Great cinematography and production values but the writing and storytelling a bit hit and miss.
I'm not a homophobe by any means but our entry was just too much in your face gayness and yes, sleazy.
Let's be honest with SCD, is its audience going to be predominantly straight males? Cause I don't know any who willingly watch it.
The BBC's target audience seem to be gay people now. Strictly, Doctor Who...just look at who they sent for the UK's Eurovision entry last night. Luckily I've never been a big fan of Doctor Who so they can't ruin the experience for me by woking it up to the extreme.
Yes I suppose it's a promising sign if Boyle is returning because I think he said he wouldn't return unless the script was strong enough.
I still don't know what they can bring that will be new to the table? Zombie films have a habit of retreading the same ground because the genre is pretty limited by its story - survival from an apocalyptic pandemic that turns people into the living dead. Presumably there will be a zombie outbreak in this and you wonder how after 28 years down the line this can happen once again.
Yes covid I'm sure will have played a part, especially as it is the older members of the public more vulnerable and the target audience for this would be the older fans of the original movies. The younger age range must be the brunt of cinema goers these days. I can't explain how else those dreadful Transformer movies made so much money despite such lukewarm critical reception.
Obviously though if this opened to acclaim from critics it would have resulted in much better numbers, even despite the other issues you speak about. But without that people just didn't think it was worth it.
On the one hand I think a fifth Indiana Jones movie could have worked. You look at how well Top Gun: Maverick was written and its success at the box office with a much older Tom Cruise returning. Then on the other hand, it's a geriatric Ford playing essentially an adventurer, where action and physicality had very much been at the core of his escapades in the previous movies, unlike with the character Maverick. Only so much you can do with an 80 year old Indiana Jones I suppose.
So could it still have worked as well with the lead character being very old this time? Well I guess it could, although this already changes the tone and the direction the film goes in. It would require relying on good side characters to do some of the heavy lifting so to speak, and I don't believe we got them here. It was a problem with the previous film and it's a problem here as we're faced with a young, unlikeable woman patronising and undermining Indy, every which way. It's not what any true IJ fan wants to see.
Woke agenda and Ford's age aside, I just don't think it was well written enough overall. The action was generic and forgettable, the villains didn't feel threatening, it was neither as dark or tense as Raiders, nor as fun as Crusade. It just felt all too safe. If they'd done things differently it may have been the film Crystal could and should have been.
Whether it's woke or not, the quality does look like a drop off from MM:FR, visually speaking. Hard to know how good the writing will be, but if the standards have gone down in the visual department (and that was one of Fury Road's big selling points), then it's not that promising. This just looks like a lower budget retread. I even wonder how much Miller's heart was in it to do this compared to Fury Road.
It was a combination of things that led to its downfall: mixed reviews, the derailment of the franchise by the previous instalment, probably a lack of interest generally from a more modern audience for a character now being played by an 80 year old. Then there's the recent reputation of Disney producing quantity over quality and being overly woke.
In a way it might be fitting for it to end on a whimper, since a whimper is the best chance of it seeing its end. Had it been hugely successful, they'd already be thinking up what they can do with the franchise next.