MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
It was act II filler. And, my goodness, when the "chopper" was closing in on the house, it looked like a radio-controlled toy. In my view, he's a workaholic and an egomaniac -- and I think the latter drives the former. It seems most of these guys at the top of their profession fall prey to alcoholism. His cohort includes Gibson, Pitt, Depp. Cruise tempered it with another drug: new-age religion. It keeps him disciplined and focused. More than anything else, he desperately wants to be the biggest movie star on the planet. And he pretty much is. He almost certainly prioritizes work above relationships. Imagine being so ignorant of basic statistics that one can write that post without feeling even slightly embarrassed. The purpose of laws is to reduce undesirable behavior, not eliminate it. In the US, mass shooting deaths are less than one percent of the victims of gun violence. Not even a cop. He's a coroner based in Nevada. She fucks him over. <blockquote>Yep, he kills them with his asshole.</blockquote> :) I'm not a fan of this movie in general, but from what I recall, I also prefer the original ending. People in the comments on the Youtube video are praising this alternative ending. I remember a writer saying there are three ways to end a story: too soon, on time, and too late. Out of the three, the best is usually too soon. There is a payoff for the assblast, and you usually want a protagonist to kill the big bad, but the sacrifice is in some ways purer the way they left it. After all, they shot the final sequence, but left it out, probably for reasons of pacing. It often happens. American Beauty had a whole final act where the kids are tried in court for killing Spacey. Wow. Turns out it's been on Yotuube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5RQWlXoD_s It looks like Washington did approve because they at least shot it. And he didn't just take out the mooks. Asian female reporter. Woman as the top govt. official. White man betrays brother. Tough talking Latina. Female pilot. I do appreciate how progressive some right-wingers are these days. This should be one-and-done. Agreed. At least with Bourne, as far as I recall, the streaky, jumbled flashbacks contained clues that the viewer would try to piece together. They were also clipped/quick. Narratively, this is more compelling when the premise assassin-with-amnesia. We want to find out what happened. These flashbacks were one-note: I-love-and-miss-my-dead-wife-and-daughter. We already know that; instead we want to know who else is involved in the conspiracy and how they're going down. It does reveal something of his character that he doesn't hit her with it. I thought this was one of the more interesting choices in an otherwise dull movie. He had chastised the child earlier, and overruled her when it came to venturing out. Could she have defeated the guys in combat? No. Not even the Reacher described in the books could have done it. The four-against-one thing is pure fantasy, but being strong and secure enough to take on her half-justified stream of abuse speaks to a strong, silent type. Moreover, since the audience knows what went down, it's boring to have him faithfully recount what happened. It did ~$218m worldwide. It performed relatively poorly in the domestic market ($80m), but that was due in part to a studio delay of the premiere and advertising because of the Sandy Hook shooting. Since it was relatively well-made, it performed reasonably well in the post-theatrical market. Box Office Mojo reports the budget was $60m, so a sequel made sense. The sequel, however, sucked, and a franchise is only as good as the last movie. Except the Foster character came back without issue. You do not know how to reason or argue. What you've produced here is a series of nonsequiturs. Do I need to pull them apart for you? Getting the financing for any movie is a struggle, even for Martin Scorcese. Working with the same writer is not an indicator of power. If you want to say politics drives the film, then cite actual things that happen in the film. It's not difficult to watch a movie and notice a gratuitously political angle that does not develop the story. If a movie IS gratuitously political, then I don't need to know who directed or financed it because I can point to things on the screen. You seem unable to do that instead resigning yourself to a version of the genetic fallacy. This sort of comment also says more about your own motives and politics. It's not even clear you've seen the movie. Film is a collaborative medium. Olivia Wilde did not write the story. She did not put up the money to create this commercial product. A second-time director is not given free rein. I thought he was a producer. "He orders you an Uber. You tell him about some recent sexual-assault accusations leveled at the company's drivers, so he tells you he's requesting 'Do not rape' service..." C'mon, that's funny. I heard that was the premise of a script in development. For the suicide mission in this movie, why couldn't they just send in drones? Those aircraft would be way more efficient as they do not require all of the safety equipment and space for a human. One could say Peterson's simply using them for his own enrichment or aggrandizement. Would they still feel threatened? Probably. Debunking lies does not endear the faithful to the debunker. Anyway, while there are incels who believe they're entitled to sex, Peterson's message generally seems to be about self-improvement. Sacrificing for something greater than oneself. I don't get the sense that he contends that they're fine the way they are and deserve sex from beautiful women, but his Project Sell-Out is probably still incomplete. John Wayne was extremely tall, but was said to wear lifts. Cruise will perform deathy-defying stunts, but is scared to let his hair gray. Almost everyone in Hollywood is faking. Alright, Alright, Alright guy has hair plugs, PED use is common, along with plastic surgery, dyed hair and whitened teeth. Nicholson said he had Hollwyood's first chin implant.