MovieChat Forums > ExTechOp > Replies
ExTechOp's Replies
He couldn't "take it back" in his own words.
Meaning, they were too far gone for him to heal.
Mr. Jingles was crushed, but it's not clear he was dead. And even if he did die, Coffey was adamant that Paul give him Mr. Jingles before it was "too late."
So apparently there's a time limit on how long someone can be dead yet still within Coffey's ability to heal.
Sparing himself when he THOUGHT he was sparing Tony ... to Steve Rogers, THAT's an admission of error
Steve isn't the type to spare his own feelings over those of his friends. Admitting he did so here was an admission of guilt
I'll concede that reasonable minds can differ on this point tho
In the novella, Red does some mental calculations and estimates that Andy's tunnels finished YEARS before he made his escape.
He speculates that Andy put off his escape attempt out of fear of the unknown and his familiarity with the prison life, sort of like Brooks in the film.
I do NOT think the film version of Andy was that indecisive, however.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that Andy did have the tunnel ready for some time, and was just waiting for the right conditions.
Exactly.
Whether "hype" comes from "hyperbole" or not is irrelevant at this point.
Through common usage, it now has its own independent meaning. That's how language works; it's organic and evolves. Rules of grammar, diction, etc. should be treated as descriptive more than prescriptive.
Besides, if it were true that "NOTHING ... lives up to its hype," the word "hype" would be useless.
All possible, but I don't see why we can't assume everything went down just like we were shown (except for some of the players' names).
It all fits with the evidence we're left with at the end, and it all serves Söze's purposes (punishing "the usual suspects" who stole from him, bringing down NY's Finest, killing Saul Berg and killing Marquez the snitch).
I don't see any reason to assume otherwise.
She acts that way because she's the part of Dexter that hates himself as he used to be
It makes sense
Still annoying though
<blockquote>
-Do most deities get bored then eventually mingle with the lesser beings to mate and create hybrids? Happens a lot apparently, even in Greek mythology.</blockquote>
My own guess is that those ancient pantheons, being based on the humans who invented and then worshipped them, just behaved like humans because they were invented by humans.
<blockquote>-Avengers nowhere to be found apparently, especially when the Eternals ignored the Chitauri Invasion, Ultron's rampage, and Thanos's cosmic fury.</blockquote>
What happened with Tiamut may have occurred too quickly for the (remaining) Avengers to assemble and address.
Sersi explains in the film why the Eternals ignored everything else in the MCU up until now. They only deal with deviant threats.
<blockquote>-Since Thanos's 'snap' wiped out half the population of the universe, this would've paused many Celestials from being created ... Why the plot hole?</blockquote>
I don't see a plot hole here
Yes, Thanos put a lot of Celestials' births on pause. These beings operate on scales of millions of years. Thanos and his snap would only set them back a few decades at most. Even a few centuries would be trivial to them.
So Thanos delayed Tiamut's birth, which the Avengers then accelerated by brining back so much (yummy to celestials) intelligent life so quickly.
<blockquote>
-Phastos is a hypocrite when he's the one that gave tech for humans to kill each other with, including the H-Bomb.
</blockquote>
Not a hypocrite; just very regretful. He wanted to give the steam engine to Babylonians, true. But I doubt, very much, that he gave humanity the atom bomb. Humans made it themselves, perhaps building off tech from Phastos.
Remorse isn't hypocrisy, especially when it comes thousands of years later.
<blockquote>
-Why would you create a disabled Eternal
</blockquote>
There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to balance their powers. Or it could be a side-effect of moving faster than the speed of sound.
Had some thoughts on some of the OP's thoughts:
<blockquote>-Social Justice Warrior Activists Ajax and Sersi wanted to end the patriarchy and the order of things along with life itself by going against the cosmic beings with their deity powers; selfishly stopping Tiamat from birthing which in turn prevents the birthing of billions of other planets and populations. Needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
-Celestials themselves seem as incompetent or prone to failure as a normal human being would given their size and big brain </blockquote>
Sersi and I think Ajak both talked about the Celestials' way being outdated, suggesting ways could be found to birth Celestials without destroying entire planets full of intelligent life.
I also got the impression that Tiamut itself cooperated rather than destroy earth. Arguably, though, Tiamut just gave Sersi the power to do what she did.
<blockquote>-Ikaris had more feelings for Sersi when he went on a suicide run towards the sun. Fitting name for his end.</blockquote>
I thought it was more like he was too conflicted to go on. It didn't seem like any of the Eternals were actively trying to kill each other so much as stop each other.
Also, I like to think it wasn't a fitting name for his end so much as the reverse (fitting end for his name). Remember, the myth of Icarus flying too close to the sun was invented by Sprite to troll Ikarus in Ancient Greece. When Ikarus couldn't bear living any longer, he chose to make Sprite's story come true.
I've watched it with the commentary -- it's clear that Linklater was very committed to the project and put a lot of thought and effort into it. It was definitely not just a sellout/cashgrab for him.
If you ever find yourself watching it again, focus on the kids instead of Jack Black and you'll see Linklater's distinctive style. It was his idea, for example, to cast the students based on their musical ability and accomplishment instead of acting background (though they were pretty much all effective actors as well, I thought).
Boring truth is I think that’s exactly what would’ve happened
You need at least one contrivance to drive a plot.
Maybe Marty and Doc would consider themselves lucky to have only changed the name of the mall
you say "faith" as if it's a good thing
Faith is just an excuse people give themselves to believe something without evidence
Look it up ... it's in the bible
Exactly ... it makes for fascinating storytelling
The question though is whether, in universe of the story, we would even WANT to make artificial lifeforms that look just like us.
I used auto-manufacturing as an example because it's one industry where robots are designed for function, not form, and don't remotely look "human."
But what if they all have green skin or blue? I wouldn't imagine that would affect the presentability of pleasure models too much. Might even increase their appeal.
Otherwise, I'd think any smaller "scarlet letter" designation, like a birthmark or brand, could easily be hidden or removed, and therefore would have very little practical value in-universe. And zero value to the filmmaker & audience -- they'd just have to show the replicants "covering up."
Regardless, this is a very interesting question, one that's never addressed in ANY film or TV show involving human-looking robots. It seems to be just assumed that we'll WANT our robots to look like us, when in reality there are many MANY reasons for robots NOT to look like us. Take real world auto-manufacturing robots, for example.
I finally got around to reading the article
It's nothing to rant about - the movie's producer just thought it was amusing that so many people he pitched the story to believed that the eggs were real.
It's no crime against "truth," just an amusing side-note, confirmation that the film's MacGuffin is credible enough to support this light-weight caper comedy.
Even "National Treasure" had to be more credible than this (since it presented us with more adventure, less comedy, and historical artifacts better known to the public at large).
Besides, the writer points out that Antony and Cleopatra's gift-giving WAS expansive and generous, so the fictional eggs fit into the quasi-historical mythos just fine.
I don't think any of the act was intended to fool anyone but Reynolds.
If he'd been real FBI, he would've turned himself into Das at the earliest opportunity. Gal's character could not have "stolen his life" with a single intercepted phone call. Quantico would have records, trainers and co-workers who could vouch for him.
That's what occurred to me during the film, but I let it slide because of the clearly intentional screwball tone.
But even the Rock's direct interaction with Das, throughout the second half of the film, was at least within potential earshot of Reynolds's character, so that's my take on it.
It's a weak defense, of course. And I mainly rest on the notion that the whole film was farcical by design, so the plot doesn't need to be airtight as long as the gags keep flowing.
I do find it interesting, though, that almost no one on this thread and a minority of posters on this message board have bothered to refer the the characters by name. They're all so obviously just playing their own public personas that we naturally think of them as Godot, Reynolds and the Rock.
I take that as a sign of the intentional silliness built into it, rather like the Rock and director's earlier collaboration on "Central Intelligence" (another weak and stupid film that I find unreasonably entertaining).
I agree. I laughed at a lot of the Reynolds/Johnson interplay.
Yes it was obvious and completely uncreatively played into all three of their existing movie personas. That's what "movie stars" do. At least this film didn't make any bones about it.
They never needed to hack the FBI anything.
Inspector Das says it herself: she took the Rock at his word when he showed up with a written authorization on FBI letterhead. When she called the real FBI, they denied ever knowing him.
Later, Gal pretends that she intercepted the Interpol call to the FBI. Personally, I thought it was a stretch (how could she know WHEN the inspector would call?), but turns out Das called the real FBI after all.
And the ONLY reason they EVER needed the FBI cover was to fool Reynolds's character. It was all just a long con designed to get Reynolds to lead them to the third egg.
Just remember, they WANTED the Rock to get exposed as a phony.
<blockquote>Batman finally beat Bane because he used strategy, although he got a little lucky because the blades on his gauntlet messed with Bane's mask and Bane went berserk from all the pain he was feeling now that his mask wasn't giving him some painkiller</blockquote>
I don't think that was "lucky" - he'd figured out Bane needed his mask and deliberately disabled it
I think it's an intentional callback to "The Dark Knight" comic series, in which Batman beats the younger, stronger mutant leader by fighting him strategically instead of with brute force
And yeah, since it's already been spoiled in this thread, Gal keeps beating the Rock because <spoiler>they've actually been working together all along. </spoiler> She beats Ryan Reynolds by playing dirty and using a spear.
Sorry I disagree with most everyone on this thread.
It's all a matter of opinion, of course, but it "felt" perfectly legitimate to me.
Levene was at the end of his rope, just as he said in a rare bit of honesty. When Williamson caught him, he stumbled and he knew it. Lemmon played that moment perfectly. To paraphrase:
"It was like he wilted all at once. No gesture, nothing. He, I swear to god, kind of imperceptibly slumped."
He tried to bluff, reflexively, but knew he was caught.
Now, I've spent a lifetime reviewing police interrogations, so I have to confess it was all very familiar to me. Cops are trained to be both "good cop" and "bad cop," and to get aggressive when they think they've got the guy dead to rights. It's all part of the Reid Interrogation technique, which is so effective that it often gets confessions from innocent people.
Here's what REALLY fascinates me about this scene: at the time, Spacey and Lemmon were in exactly the opposite relationship. Spacey was a young, ambitious actor who constantly pestered Lemmon for advice. Lemmon jokingly mocked Spacey privately and publicly, but in reality was always generous with advice and assistance. It was Lemmon, of all people, who pushed hard to get Spacey into "Glengarry."
Hopefully, Lemmon never learned about Spacey's off-screen misbehavior.
L.A. Theatre Works recorded the original play using:
Joe Mantegna as Ricky Roma
Gordon Clapp as David Moss
Kyle Colerider-Krugh as Detective Baylen
Richard Dreyfuss as Shelly Levine
John Getz as James Lingk
Richard Schiff as George Aaronow
Josh Stamberg as John Williamson
I bought it. It was surprisingly poor. Dreyfuss in particular sounded like he was phoning it in.
There was a brief Broadway revival in 2005 with Alan Alda (QED, "M*A*S*H") as Shelly Levene, Jeffrey Tambor (Sly Fox, "Arrested Development") as George Aaronow, Liev Schreiber (Henry V, "Scream") as Richard Roma, Gordon Clapp ("NYPD Blue," "Moonlight Mile") as Dave Moss, Tom Wopat (Annie Get Your Gun, "The Dukes of Hazzard") as James Lingk, Frederick Weller (Take Me Out, "The Shape of Things") as John Williamson and Jordan Lage (The Best Man, "The Spanish Prisoner") as the detective Baylen.
That one sounded pretty intense, especially with Alda and Schreiber -- easy for me to imagine them in the roles yet playing them VERY differently from Lemmon and Pacino. I've never found any clips of that one, sadly
Lastly, in 2012, there was a short experimental run that I think closed quickly to tepid reviews. It starred Bobby Cannavale as Roma, along with David Harbour and Richard Schiff (I'd guess as Moss and Aranow), and the ULTIMATE recasting: Al Pacino as Levene.
That would've been HILARIOUS, or it should've been. He's played insecure before ("Sea of Love"). But again the critics were harsh, claiming Pacino was essentially still experimenting with the role.
EDIT:
Just found this:
https://www.playbill.com/video/highlights-from-glengarry-glen-ross-starring-al-pacino-com-224213
So Harbour was Williamson, McGinley was Moss, and Pacino was, indeed, sadly slacking off (rather like Dreyfuss ... maybe the role's too much for a typical "alpha male" to handle). Everyone else looked great, though.