MovieChat Forums > ExTechOp > Replies
ExTechOp's Replies
All that "bull" you point out, legitimately point out I should say, are sorta what MAKE an "A-Team" plot.
To me, complaining about all that admitted absurdity is like complaining about noisy space battles in sci-fi flicks.
Well, all that matters to the film's plot is that Cady thought her promiscuity COULD have gotten him acquitted.
Whether it actually would have or not is irrelevant. Cady was angry because his lawyer, who's supposed to protect his rights zealously, instead buried the info.
Cady may even have thought the info was a slam-dunk defense; he's a criminal, and criminals tend to think stupid things.
Depends a lot on how they do it.
For example, it's not clear to me whether Deadpool actually is speaking to the audience, or in his madness just THINKS he's speaking to an imaginary audience.
If it's the former, then he could show up anywhere as a "meta" narrative gimmick. If it's the latter, he can just show up on his own, and any references to mutants or X-Men could be brushed off by other characters as Deadpool's insane ravings.
He's not portrayed as weak or pathetic BECAUSE of his race, so it's a close call at best
No one's making cracks about saffron or cows, either. All the humor comes from his being a normal human whom Deadpool is irresponsibly (but hilariously) dragging into dangerous superhero fights.
I think it's anyone's guess at this point. Possible that even Feige himself hasn't committed to any one single plot line (though it's for certain that he's got at least one clear idea in mind)
Thanks for the response - just what I'd been hoping for, i.e., much more interesting and potentially profound plot lines than just fighting an "evil imposter"
If the director says so, then that's that.
I still think there's room for confusion, since "present day" in the MCU is actually 2025. And "blip" is what the world calls the first snap. People were "blipped away," then returned five years later.
But we have to stick the director's intent if no one says otherwise (e.g., "Endgame" writers & directors disagree on whether Cap traveled to an alternative timeline or has been present all along)
So Danvers grew her hair back out after Rocket's crack about her haircut.
And Bruce found a way to revert back to human, but his arm still hasn't healed. That's consistent with the Russos who claimed that Hulk's snap damaged him permanently. I did notice that he seemed to have a lot more gray/white hair, although it could've been a trick of the holographic display.
BTW, I agree that Smart Hulk was in that state permanently. That's why he needed a pencil to operate the time machine -- his fingers were too big. It'd be easier to change to human, unless he can't.
But since then, it's been two years. He could've improved on the process and found a way to change back and forth.
Seems like COVID is a lot to blame. Opening nights are usually packed here and our theaters were more than half-empty. This film in particular should've packed them in given the Asian majority population (I'm in Hawaii).
So did Tony Stark in "Civil War." Avengers can be injured.
Besides, do the math. Shang-Chi was born around 1996, fled to America when he was 14 and lived there ten years. 1996 plus 24 years is 2020, not 2023
I think they were showing us that this movie was set around 2018-2019.
Banner hasn’t merged with the Hulk … yet (it took him “18 months in the gamma lab”)
Danvers’s hair looked the same as it did at the start of Endgame, BEFORE the five year jump.
Wong’s on his own because Dr. Strange is still dusted.
Katy refers to half the population vanishing … nothing about the returning.
Oh I think the teacher knew very well ... that's why she was helpful and not scary. Cole had probably helped her with closure somehow, and she stuck around to help him with make-up based on her teacher's instinct
I also like to think that most of them did know they were dead, but were in denial. That's why they were so frantic to be heard.
I never watched it, but I agree with Sandman that the Jennifer Love Hewitt show was clearly marketed as "what happens next" for someone with Cole's abilities.
I have no problem with the lack of "abort" protocol because (A) it'd introduce an element of risk (any further communication opens the door to discovery and/or abuse) and (B) it's consistent with the judges' own hubris. They believe that, unshackled by the constraints of due process, they can issue the "Correct" judgments. Having an "abort" option would be inconsistent with that philosophy.
It's like Caesar burning his own ships - no way to go but forward.
I think the OP just described an excellent sequel or re-imagining of the original film
An actual Star Chamber that judged those otherwise accountable only to the stars?
Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? Can we even tell any more? Would the protagonist have to "save" someone who absolutely doesn't deserve saving (and more than Monk and Cooms did in this film).
I'd pay to see that flick
I don't think this movie ever could've been "great" although that's admittedly a matter of opinion.
I think this film used an intriguing premise (invading memories) but told a remarkably pedestrian story for such an interesting set-up
Typically, films like this include existential crises or epistemological questions ... how do we know what's real? What happens if our memories become our future? This film's trailers made it seem like it might delve into those notions.
Instead, we get this competent but by-the-numbers film noir that happened to use memory-scanning as a convenient plot device. To me, that's only enough to rate "good," never "great."
I liked it, but I won't be watching it again.
Exactly, she's SUPPOSED to look like Mae
The idea was that Cyrus (the Cliff Curtis character) had been so affected by Mae's confession of love that he started obsessively re-enacting it, like Sylvan's crazy wife.
it's something of a plot contrivance in my opinion ... Cyrus might've been moved by Mae's confession, but when she ended it with Nick's name, he realized immediately that she was just using his brain as a maildrop. Why get sentimental over some gal who used you as a conduit?
Of course they CAN have fun at UCLA. They just don’t care that much.
Their “pedigree” is based on wealth, not lineage or education.
Modern Asian cultures (excluding Japanese) don’t really look down on “nouveau riche,” in part because they don’t have a lot of “old money” to begin with.
Japanese however are VERY conscious of pedigree and social status, to the point where they admire a near-broke lawyer over a multi-millionaire entrepreneur.
As for the Felicity Huffman thing, that was an distinctly American phenomenon.
“Buying your way in” to a place like USC or Harvard takes at least a million a year in donations starting with your kid’s birth (and of course you make them all in the kid’s name).
She and her fellow “conspirators” tried to cut corners and get in “cheap.”
It doesn't matter if YOU don't see anything special about her; all the matters is that NED does. It's true, Ned's obsession has to be believable, and I personally think it IS believable although you clearly disagree.
Roger Ebert described Matty's expression, just before Ned breaks down the glass door to get at her, as the calmly expectant look of someone who's just put a coin into a vending machine. But WHY is she so clinical and confident?
It's because she's been playing him all along.
Remember, Matty actually targeted Ned about a year before the film starts, when she learns how he screwed up the Gourson will.
From that point on, she's been stalking him. She knows where he hangs out and where he goes to meet women. It's no accident that she walks past him at that jazz concert, close enough for him to smell her perfume, without giving him so much as a sidelong glance.
She does it because she knows men like him. She's had to deal with men like him since her adolescence. They like getting laid, but they LOVE a challenge. So she appears, draws him in with a little encouragement, then vanishes.
Then, in the Pinehaven bar, she "casually" admits Ned's the first man she's allowed to sit next to her, after a "lot of men" tried.
EVERYTHING she does and says is for a reason, the goal of hooking Ned and reeling him in.
You've gotta love how she describes Edmund as small and weak ... and he turns out be Col. Trautman.
There's even a deleted scene where she suspects Ned's having doubts, so she visits him and starts talking about calling it off, using reverse psychology, while casually undressing for sex. She's very obviously challenging his masculinity, which is why I'm glad they deleted the scene.
Watch it sometime with that in mind, and it's absolutely diabolical how she plays him.
<blockquote>yes but this was already left to the interpretation when, as walking toward the boathouse, said "whatever happens Ned.. I do love you"</blockquote>
But she's talking to Ned at that moment, and therefore quite possibly still "playing" him.
In the final shot, she's got no one to fool, so we're seeing her true face
For what it's worth, I read an interview with Kathleen Turner on the subject. She believes Matty actually did fall in love with Ned (and played the role accordingly). Unfortunately for Ned and herself, Matty's need to achieve her goals outweighed her love of Ned. Turner wants us to believe that Matty is still haunted by that regret, the possibility that she could've made it work without setting Ned up as the fall guy (or killing him with the boathouse bomb).
Long story short: we need to see, for a fact, that she's not completely happy.
ALL THAT ASIDE: I agree that ending without that final shot would've still been powerful
Also, it took me many viewings, but I finally noticed that, as the theme song starts up again, we can actually hear wind chimes in the background while Ned looks at Matty/Maryann's yearbook photo. The soundtrack itself is mocking Ned.
I always thought Ned just dropped the beam on Edmund’s head to hide the skull fracture Ned gave him back at the mansion
Your explanation fits with that though - make it look like Edmund set the bomb, and then the beam hit his head.
But now that I think about it, arson was REALLY stupid, especially because Ned was consulting with a known arsonist who has no known connection to Edmund and a very on-the-record connection to Ned
It's idiotic, but it makes perfect sense for a lazy thinker like Ned. He knows the Breakers is a dump, he knows about insurance fraud (because he's probably defended Teddy in other arson-for-insurance cases), so he consults Teddy instead of coming up with an original plan with fewer moving parts.
Ned was so dismally out of his depth all along. I have to confess, I think of Ned more often than I should whenever I’ve been tempted to take a shortcut or go after easy money. So many ways things can go wrong, I'm a genius if I can think of half of 'em, and I am no genius.
At least I'm smarter than Ned