MovieChat Forums > Heisenberg

Heisenberg (543)


Awful awful awful priest sex story Jesus is everywhere, even on IMDB Anybody watched this NOT because of naked Scarlett? So did she do it with Harrison Ford or not? Root for the bad guy? What exactly was their point? Johnny or John in EVERY!?! Make it like Flash, please The ending was crap, they should have done this instead: Why is this crap so famous in US? View all posts >


Wow, I didn't realize there was such a big conspirancy behind it. It's still right on lots of points, as this movie is trashable crap. I've never watched Six Feet Under, I saw some trailers and it looked a bit depressing and not that interesting. What's the hook? Am I missing out a lot? As far as godless moronic braindead entertainment, this show is one of the leanest around. Most of the action is essential to the story and characters, it doesn't dwell long on side trivia. the cement mixer is a leg. "I am your bro" - Jesus I think your point is incorrect and anti reality. Why do you say this guy doesn't understand the difference between day and night? I still have the complete original green devastator. This is a brilliant post. I concur. But I have to say, the target is too easy, this is shooting on the red cross. This movie is stupidity solidified and then filmed. So it's easy to call it stupid. I didn't say anything about that dialogue being backstory, I said that its function is to reveal Jules character. If anything, them being student types detracts from the whole confrontation and makes the whole miracle debate stupid: the guy with the gun looked like it was the first time he ever used it. Hence, he missed like that. Not much of a miracle, I don't know why either one was so surprised. Other than, them being rookies too. Even more, wouldn't they be used to be the target of bullets? Jules later says "this is not the first time a gun was pointed at me". Maybe he was referring to this incident only, like it never actually happened before that day! Seriously, any real gangsta would have known what happened there with that rookie, and would have chalked it up as routine. Just one more example where quirky plays against the movie, instead of for it. Jimmy was another overwrought character, who has to pester us with his problems about his nurse wife coming back home because, you know, we care so much about Jimmy having seen him for 5 minutes and knowing that he cases so much about his coffee and linens from his uncle. I can go on for another 5 paragraph about "Jimmy the normal guy". Do I have to? It's another minor unimportant character who crams way too many useless informations about him. Brad etc, also "regular guys": they are on screen for 5 min or less, their function is to trigger Jules' speech n conversion. Instead of cutting to the chase, we endure the burger bs n the "what" dialogue. Which are useful to show Jules' inexorability, but also give us the impression that Brad is in the wrong line of business. Which is getting to my point: Brad's "regularity" is what makes him quirky. So is the flock of seagull friend. They couldn't just be 3 shady hoodlums in an alley: they had to be some student type in an apartment eating cheeseburgers for breakfast. Tasty ones, because it's important for us to know that they like their burgers good...Don't you think that's unneeded details for a scene that was there only to show us Jules' character? Ringo n HB, they are not that "minor" characters so I could use the details we are given, like Vincent or Butch. Look, I think our discussion should settle on this: one point PF makes is that everybody, even the gimp, has a backstory and more character to them than we are told in most other movies. What bothers me (but not you) is that such a "clever" observation had its day in the sun when it was fresh, 30 years ago. After repeated viewings and many imitators, the quirks and originality of each character wear thin, and appear to me as gimmicky, distracting and not needed, while to you they are barely noticeable and welcome. View all replies >