MovieChat Forums > TheMan18 > Replies
TheMan18's Replies
This Disney animation actually at times manages to be both horrifying and charmingly and playfully joyful and even comic at times. In some cases at the same time. Like, at times you see this Beast being horrifying and the wolves and the castle all dark and stuff. And then you see some objects like Mrs Potts and her cups and the Wardrobe, despite at least being VERY unusual and especially more so probably for the 1700s, times way outside the internet and whatnot and even books having perhaps some limitations, being charming, playful and funny, so much, that they don't even surprise that badly or throw off track Maurice and Belle, and yet when they first come across the BEAST, he DOES. Those objects were almost like Casper the friendly ghost rather than something terrifying and malicious from a haunted house horror movie. But then some, like that carriage, were meant to be horrifying - was Maurice OK to be in it?
But then you also have the human enemies. And we are, rightly so, meant to be against them. As when THEY come across the castle, under Gaston's orders to "Kill the Beast", they at least attempt a massive chaos and deadly battle against its practically supernatural inhabitants. So dark stuff there as well. But also in some cases almost animated slapstick comedy.
And we are meant to view and they are, basically, a prejudiced crowd. But what if regular people came across it somehow more? And what on Earth happened to that Enchantress ultimately, where did she come from?
Yeah, there's also a Russian version entitled "The Scarlet Flower" although, small spoiler, it retains this one's happy ending.
Interesting how in this one, the curse even managed to resurrect the dead Beast as well, but I believe a lot of what happens in this movie, and the story in general, is steeped in artistic metaphors. As in, he has learned to love and learned to be more human and the beastly side of him disappeared and there was possibly more to this curse than the enchantress originally let on.
I wonder if during that fight also, and I did start a topic about it, any of those objects were more wounded, would they be healed too after the curse was lifted? And probably yeah, it may even have more horrifying ramifications than them simply continuing being objects and him the Beast, for a little while its hard but tolerable but forever - no way.
I wonder which modern action movies depict that. :)
Couldn't have said it better myself, cheer capuchin. (For any of my detractors, one of the, however "few", times I've actually complimented a replier here, there are always exceptions but I try not to always only theoretically stick to just rules, either.)
P.S. I wonder if people of Russia are aware of this, as for one, yeah we also like modern action movies but we also see ourselves as "good guys" in WW2 even with some controversial exceptions, agreements and disagreements do come though, notwithstanding, even if we too realize that this and other examples in life are not too simple, and we don't make "action movies" our perfect role model.
And on a side note, who or what really gave Joe the lodger the right to be so judgmental and speak for Alex's parents like that? And it didn't occur to Joe that maybe his parents could still take Alex's side and kick him out? No - they just sat their in passive silence, cried and did nothing to get involved. At the end though, I wonder - did they still leave Joe and did they ultimately find a place for Alex to stay or was Joe made to leave and thus Alex at the end was welcomed back in his own home?
Also. Yeah, I get it that Alex was upset that for instance his place was temporarily given to someone else who also invited hostility towards him. But its also clear by that point Alex had NO MONEY to say go and find a place to stay in, whether a hotel or a room somewhere, and I bet that to a degree those were fairly reasonable to expensive. And he didn't ask his parents for money either. So where was he PLANNING to find SHELTER before finally getting attacked by his former victims? And also, let's say Alex somehow DID have money or his parents have given him some money to go and rent a place elsewhere, would he really do it, albeit reluctantly? Or... Was his homeplace really so dear to him and that being even "temporarily" kicked out of it was a huge insult that even if he HAD money to somehow go and live elsewhere or his parents had it and have given it to him, he would not do it on his own accord?
"You may have answered one of your own questions here. If they needed to rent out the room for money, then obviously they couldn't have rented another place just for Alex."
That may be partially true.
But the film doesn't really go in depth as to why the parents of Alex REALLY decided to rent out the room to Joe. Maybe they weren't terribly short of money but desired MORE money, maybe they also wanted a company to replace their long-time imprisoned son, maybe they didn't mind it all too much and thus have given it to him.
Besides, whether in Britain in 1971 or this film's future setting, I wonder - was it really expensive to rent a flat or a place for say a few months? Would Alex's parents (no idea what they did for a living or how much they earned) be able to afford it on their basic as well as somewhat EXTRA salaries or rent money? And even given Alex's emotional state with the lodger adding fuel to fire by saying terrible things about him throughout and the parents don't dare ask him to stop, could or would Alex say if he didn't storm out in anger decide to negotiate such terms, heck, maybe he had OTHER relatives in that place who could welcome him and give him shelter or sanctuary, however short or for a while?
"No one gives a shit about the families of murdering bastards."
Several replies on the board for "Dead Man Walking" (1995), for one, seem to prove otherwise. )
But then in a Time To Kill, for instance, we are supposed to be on Samuel L Jackson's side, of course, that movie also goes in several other directions and tries to make a point about stuff like legal system and racism as well. And SPOILERS - the lawyer even (maybe rightly so) convinces the jury to let him go and they even do. And some of the villains there are really really awful human beings and we don't see or are meant to see too much of a strain that them passing away causes their family members.
You really think so Kowalski, any particular tips?
Haha, will think about it but I got tons of music already, don't really think it will help *too much*, lol. :)
Also, isn't laziness RELATIVE? I mean, it may take GUTS to actually BECOME a criminal, and if you get suspected or caught and you are on the run, it may mean you will spend your whole LIFETIME running away from the police, leaving your homeland, your relatives (if you have any, most of us DO), you may even commit more crimes etc.
I wouldn't ever defend criminals or speak of them in a positive light. But they don't seem merely lazy based on all those things.
And yet, again not criticizing anyone or anything, many civilized people would, and rightly so, say that they deserve to get caught and that "if you don't want to be imprisoned, don't do this and that" well, yeah, very basic and non-ground-breaking golden rules, but get THOSE FOLKS to simply see it from that point of view, then again, they don't seem to concerned about morality and law in general, right?
Life is overall complex and complicated and we often find out new information every day on a whim so sometimes what you may have known before isn't really all that important though it could be at the time.
Based on his reactions, I bet he'll probably be an avid opponent of the death penalty too, but what if Alex, someone who caused harm to him and someone close to him, was about to have it, would he be eager to defend him?
But Sister Helen had a different view, apparently, and nobody challenged so much her views.
"That's the movies for you."
In the MOVIES for the most part, see action movies as the top example, we also see heroes kill plenty of bad guys and THAT is considered a GOOD thing that not only do nobody so much as question but plenty of people actively APPLAUD, and yet with this movie, for instance, even by a legal system with a controversial method, this is what happens and people see it as wrong. Hmm, I wonder, why that is, or is there like a difference because there you have people fighting for their lives and no choice but to do so with deadly violence, but death penalty alone as a system isn't on that level?
And its not even "justifiable killing" or "justifiable homicide" but like straight murder, correct?
So even if you kill a bad guy as part of punishment, its just as bad as him killing innocent people, really?
That's because for them, no matter how bad their relative is and how guilty he is, it is always sad to lose a loved one. But then, one could say something similar in cases someone got killed in self defence or even jailed for life - as necessary and inevitable as it is though. Should all of that be avoided too to avoid making them sad and distraught? And what about some cases where a criminal has no relatives as such?
"Because it's wrong."
Wrong by WHAT standard? And if it really IS as bad and immoral as say the murder of innocents like for instance our main antagonist have committed here, why was it implemented in the law, given that law by its virtue does believe and is meant to be way above morally the criminal elements it intends to punish?
Maybe it does in some or other ways, but in others, not as 100% as some make it out to be.