MovieChat Forums > Quint > Replies
Quint's Replies
- No, a cliche isnt racist. Its just a common code that all people understand. Noone beside you thinks for a second that all indians are eating monkey brain all day for real!
- Millions of people outside India watching Bollywood movies. They are full of cliches and therefor easy fun to watch and enjoy. Its one of the fastest growing movie industries out there. And no, noone from Switzerland even gives a sh*t about this cliches they are using in there movies. Cause ..... its a cliche, not reality! Learn to differ thos two things. Cause they have nothing in common at all.
Its not only that. Zizek compared this behaviour with the stalinists in the USSR. Every regime opponent was shown as mentally instable. Therefor opposition against the tyrrany meant, in this misanthropic view of the world, that you had a problem with your mental wellness and therefor you had to be cured.
Stalinists and fascists arent that far positioned from one another.
Canadian government is a bunch of hatefilled fascists. They hate their people and they hate therefor democracy. Time for the people to fight against this tyrrany.
I will let you know when i give a damn about the opinion of a fascist!
Thats why its called a cliché, dumbhead! Its used in movies cause its a common denominator.
Ever thought about thos tons of Boolywood movies were the people of Switzerland were shown as yodeling fools? Were there ever any protest from woke fascists that this is cultural appropriation? Or whatever terms you fascists are using to fight society.
Get a life, fascist.
Take a look at the "Witness for the Prosecution" forum here. There is one thread about this topic. But as I mentioned: I find that completely out of context and just a way to put a homosexual relationship by force into anything.
Its as horrible woke a possible. Theres almost no male sailor aboard the ship. Poirot virtue wasnt sourced by his intellect, but instead by a human desaster (of which he also was partly guilty of). He was attacked by a young woman, who doesnt have the smallest moral authority at all (beside not being a white old man). And at the end they killed (without any connection to the original book) the only mixed race couple on board (cause wokeism means that race strictly have to live apart from each other).
Wokeism is pure racism. Salome Otterbourne would have been the third murder victim. But cause you cant kill a black woman in a woke movie (even when the story describes it that way) you have to kill a young white men. And that way you also reach one of the main goals of wokeism: race separation. Cause without this third murder attempt there would have been a couple of mixed color skins at the end of the movie. And god forbid such a travesty when it comes to woke fanatics.
I would agree even with most of your posting. But comparing the amazingly well played VanDamm with a two dimensional villain like Gruber is a little too much :) . IMHO Die Hard is amazing popcorn cinema. I really like to watch it every time. And you could indeed realize the panic within McClane when he found himself trapped at the skycrapper. But this is just some sort of empathy build up so that the audience wont fall asleep between the actions scenes ;) . For popcorn cinema this build up is absolutely believable and differs it from most of the horrible movies of todays action cinema (where most times character and story arc build up is obviously not an option and therefor the whole "movie" is just a graphics demo for the used rendering computer :) ).
But beside thos obvious qualities of Die Hard, theres no same level for comparing VanDamm (thos amazing dialogue lines - this point perfect acting (when VanDamm realizes that Leonard had a crush on him - handling that with one line)) with Kruger. Beside that I think that his almost one dimensional acting (a two dimensional character would have been absolutely perfect for such a movie. But IMHO his character wasnt even two dimensional ;) ) was the weak part of otherwise almost perfect popcorn cinema. BTW Am I the only one which likes Die Hard 2 as much as Die Hard :) ? Seems like the opinion of the YouTube bubble is, that Die Hard 2 was a let down.
And about Raiders: I found Belloq amazing. A villain almost as good/bad as the hero. And not even done in the teen only depressing way like todays movies (to simulate authenticism). But yes, the ones in Indy 2 and 3 were really interchangeable.
Yep, VanDamm obviously had no interest in Leonard. But the sentence, that he find his actions "charming" isnt completely professional ;) . So it seems like the character himself was smarter then the actor :) .
Die Hard is an amazing popcorn movie! But there is no way to compare it with a perfect plot movie with incredible actors like Grant and Mason. Bruce Willis did his role in Die Hard perfectly. But he always was more of a two dimensional character. This isnt a critic in any way, cause such comedy action movies had to include two dimensional characters. Thats the reason why we like to watch again and again. But Thornhill is a real person. Ive watched the movie again and realized all the panic and fear within Thornhills actions and voice while realizing the terror of crime hes pushed into. And all that combined with the cool served emotions of the 50s. Thats something you wont see in many other action movies. So Die Hard isnt even in the same category as North by Northwest.
But that doesnt mean that it hurts the reputation of any of this two amazing movies!
Thats so meta :) !
It doesnt hurt anything. It is called art style. Like the horrible dark mooded movies done today mainly for depressed teens.
And yes, its obvious. Cause it was always meant to be obvious. Its a given agreement between creator and movie viewer. You see this horrible movie at the back window of the car? Thats the outside of the car! And noone ever thought about "Doesnt that look horrible?" beside some "smart" guys which didnt even get the simply fact of an agreement between the creator and the audience.
And this still works today. Most, if not all, of todays rendering effects are done with a small budget (the small budget is the reason why they exist at all, cause computer effects arent used cause they are so realistic (in many cases they cant compare with good practical effects). They are used cause they are way cheaper to do then practical effects) and therefor render way too less details and resolution. You have to be blind if you dont realize a rendering object when you see it on screen. But does this matter? Not at all. Cause thats todays agreement between the creators and the audience. "You see that thing flying around and looking like an Playstation intro. Yep, thats an airplane!".
The thing that puzzled you was "acting". I know thats something you arent familiar with. And then there is this other thing you dont know called "plot". Nothing of that exists anymore. Most of todays "actors" cant "act" anymore. They just stand around with their own personality. The ugly inheritance of method acting. And then you had to deal with a working plot. OMG, poor content consumer. Next time have fun again with content freed up of all this disturbing things and some woke fascism as toping!
There is no such a thing as aging when it comes to works of art. They are good or bad. But aging is dumb term.
And I see your point that you cant rate amazing acting when you see it. All this horrible acting of todays persons (they arent acting in most cases anymore, cause they are simply "playing" themselves - aka method acting at its worst). How could anyone blame you that you dont realize amazing actors when you see them. Not your fault.
Departed or United 93 is proof for what again? Its impossible to compare todays content consumer trash with real film making of the past. You wont get good movies anymore. This is impossible cause of global marketing (avoids any base for good story telling and good jokes) and woke fascism. Movie making is history. There are now and then some miracles (like Joker) but they are just exceptions proofing the fact.
A remake is impossible. This movie is completely nested within the culture of the era. There is no way to tell such a movie with the constrains of todays moviemaking. BTW Isnt it sick, that even during the censorship of the 50s movie makers had more freedoms then with todays woke facism?
No audience is modern if they think that their movie selection filter includes the chemistry of the movie strip! In such a case they are nothing more then the usually dumb content consumers. And such dumbheads wouldnt spend time on a masterpiece of storytelling and acting anyway.
Laughton had a crush on Tyrone ..... indeed :) . Amazing how even the last challenge for a dying attorney becomes a sexual relationship :) .