MovieChat Forums > BigTulsa > Replies
BigTulsa's Replies
I'm betting this monkeynutz in the OP didn't watch one episode.
I've watched all the episodes. It gives off a mashup of Inception/Legion vibe. Some have said it reminds them of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I haven't watched that movie yet so I couldn't say.
However, there is some comedy to it. But I wouldn't categorize it as one.
Watch the movie on BR or DVD and listen to the alternate audio that has Sam Mendes and Alan Ball commenting throughout. It's fascinating and there are things they talk about (like the extended version of the movie) that makes things come to light.
In the original script (before editing) it starts with Jane and Ricky in jail, so yes. Mendes and the screenwriter did a lot of changes during shooting.
Just saw an article saying Stephen Dorff has been cast for Season 3 as well...
http://deadline.com/2018/01/true-detective-stephen-dorff-cast-season-3-hbo-anthology-series-1202234846/
Yeah, I fat-fingered...it was 6.
My favorite:
Ep 4
"So, how was the pull-out"....
But my point is I think in part the attraction of the series is that in the first five seasons or so, the story telling was very slow paced and deliberate. Starting with season six I think they knew they were on borrowed time as far as needing to wrap up the series so the pacing was pushed which will detract when you compare it to the previous seasons. I understand that complaint. What I don't like are people just complaining about for the sake of complaining. Loose ends need to be tied up.
And I liked the Winterfell subplot with Sansa/Arya/Petyr. Kept me guessing. Always hated Littlefinger the character but the actor did superbly.
I think really, Dany has softened that 'burn them all' stance since seeing the kind of man/leader Jon is.
I'm not sure why all the hate for this season. Did they expect it to drag out at this point? They have a lot of resolution to do and they had 13 episodes with which to do it. Some of the 'fast time' stuff I think is a little silly, but it hasn't taken away from the season. Not for me anyway.
I'm still curious about the 'three-headed dragon' theory. Is the third Targaryen going to be a baby? Is it possibly Tyrion? That's why I love this show. It keeps you guessing. Well, except for the whole last season and R+L=J(A)
I'm gonna bet that I'm probably older than you.
That's what the story was going for. Makes you examine what you as the viewer might have done in that situation.
You're really overthinking that aren't you? Hero/villain is always identified in almost every entertainment medium. In this case there are technically two and no villains. But continue to overthink if that's what makes you feel better
Me as well. However most movies 90 percent and above via RT I typically favor. I can't think of one I haven't recently. But many rated like this: I have to shake my head sometimes. As I said, I thought Chris Pratt did well for doing much of the movie solo, and then when they had to play off each other, I thought I read someone in another post saying there was no chemistry between them. Wow...not sure what they were watching, but even big critics of the movie conceded the chemistry between the leads nearly saved the movie for them.
I thought Pratt stretched his acting chops a little here. I've liked him in movies like Moneyball (first thing I can ever remember seeing him in...I was never a huge Parks and Rec fan) and obviously GotG but he always does comedy well. He was playing the straight shooter in this. With a few funny moments sprinkled in.
I agree with that. It would have been interesting to see if all the calls of 'rape' would have been made about the story had the gender roles been turned around.
It's not like this screenplay hasn't been floating in the ethos since 2007. I read the original screenplay (of which the third act is WAY different than what was filmed) and I'm pretty sure that would have gotten some flak over how it was concluded. I didn't like the original ending though....the resolution was a little bit of a copout.
This might be the most idiotic comment I've ever seen.
He didn't rape her. Psychologically or physically.
What he did WAS morally wrong...put yourself in that situation though. 5000 other people on a ship, you're awake 90 years early and likely no one else will wake up. Human contact is craved by humans on a daily basis. Studies show that without it for long stretches (even as short as 2 weeks) people suffer mental instability from it.
Can you with absolute CERTAINTY say you wouldn't do this? I can't.
I call bullshit.
I'm going to edit my post here and add a blurb I found from the screenwriter (Jim Spaihts) regarding this:
[quote]It’s not as if it’s an accidental oversight of the film, where we, through some cultural blindness, have failed to see the appalling nature of our hero’s actions. It is the subject of the film. And I think that making a movie that leaves people room to argue about what they would have done, what they could have forgiven, what they can understand or fail to understand, I think that’s great. I think that’s good storytelling. What I don’t believe the movie does is endorse or exonerate anyone. The movie looks, evenhandedly, at the dilemma everybody was in. I think putting good people in impossible circumstances makes for fascinating storytelling.[/quote]
And at the end of the day that's really all that anyone can ask. I posted in another thread that while RT gave this a poor rating (31 percent) I typically try and aggreagate...using Flixster, their rating was 63 percent...they base that on people who aren't paid to review movies...they base it on people who pay to see them.
What's funny is I pay a little more attention to Flixster because they gauge how movie-goers like it. It got a 63 percent rating (compared to 31 percent from RT). But ultimately I don't let critics tell me what movie to go see. I got word of mouth on this. Plus having Thomas Newman score it usually puts it on my 'must watch' list anyway.
Right. So you can say that with certainty, knowing that you will likely be the only person to keep you company until you die? Sure.
And it's people like you calling this film rapey (it's not) that piss me off. Was the decision to do what he did morally wrong? Of course it was. That's what movies are supposed to do...entertain and make you think.
Wow. I enjoyed this movie immensely. It makes you think about what you might do in the same situation. And I can tell you I honestly do not know if I would not have done the same thing. Human contact with others is such a strong stimulus. And it doesn't need to be sexual in any way. Looking at how just one year affected him was enough for me to step back and say (as Gus said)....'damn'.
It did make it's budget back, it just didn't perform as well as expected. Blame the studio for the way they marketed it and then dumbass critics taking issue with the main premise of the movie (Jim's decision) and then calling the movie 'misogynistic' and smacking of Stockholm Syndrome.
Critics ruined this movie. I still enjoyed it and thought both leads did well considering how much work they put into it since it's essentially just these two (and Pratt did well for the first 35 minutes as he's essentially the only actor on screen).
While I can understand having a problem with the story, there was absolutely no lack of chemistry between the leads. Even most of the harshest critics of the film conceded that. And I do like both of the actors' bodies of work separately. I was glad to see them do a film together.