MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
MavKilledGoose's Replies
According to the subtitles, the sound was "wood snapping."
Terrible actress. I only watched the first twenty minutes.
Her running is labored. She's all elbows.
She climbs down a ladder into the boat, and does this lil' shimmy, and then tries to point her gun like a badass.
I didn't care for this one. It looked like they shot the "university" at a high school. Spoilers...
In the beginning, he's supremely confident that the police will not find anything. At the end, he talks about his terrible memory and how he may have murdered this co-ed. It reminds me of the terrible movie Under Suspicion (2000, co-stars Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman).
What we see happening is not reliable. We saw him making out with the girl from the hardware store, but later it becomes clear that he was only fantasizing. Early on I wondered if his colleague (played by Jamie Kennedy) had actually murdered the girl. I wondered for a moment if Anna was the woman he had allegedly been with in Illinois and then stalked him to his univeristy. I wondered why she had apologized for "taking advantage" of him.
You're pretty quick to make foolish assumptions.
I invoke the same episode when arguing militias are antiquated. They did an OK job defending their home-towns, but were an absolute disaster anywhere else. It almost suggests that dominant thinking in the late 18th century does not translate well to the present day. The point is not that we should abolish a standing army; it's that originalists are unprincipled.
Also, the word you were groping for is "rationale."
It's pretty amazing that they're fanatical about their guns when agents of the state kill far more of our citizens (on a per capita basis, forget about race) than what's experienced in other wealthy, industrialized countries. It's almost as if the armed populace thing is having the opposite effect.
It is also amusing how the self-proclaimed "originalists" and "supporters of 1776" are fanatically pro-military when the (limited) government was framed by men who viewed a standing army as a threat to peace and prosperity. I think the Trump devotion shows they're not much interested in principles. It's about power and emotion. Trump himself has almost no coherent political ideology. He's their id.
"because he beats the loop he’s replaced with Nyles who never went into the cave."
He's replaced with the Nyles who has not yet gone into the cave. Sarah and Roy only went into the cave because of Nyles, but Nyles (presumably) goes into the cave without the interference of looped forces.
Of course, if we're talking eternities here, just about everyone in that area will eventually enter the loop cave. And you would inevitably get some malevolent characters who, upon looping, would deliberately lure others into looping, and eventually every human being and pet will be looped.
The funniest scene is when he storms into the church, sticks a gun in the clergyman's face and demands they open the casket. He takes one look at the little ol' lady inside and yells, "Bitch!"
The Writers Guild generally refuses to give writing credit to stars and (especially) directors who re-write a script. This is because of past abuses where they'd make minimal contributions, but manage to steal residuals/credit from writers. The whole system is a little whacky because there are some directors who make significant changes to the story and characters, but if they do so, then it's for the sake of the story, and not to pad their resume and bank account.
I don't buy this explanation.
If this were the case, why did they have Scott investigating in the first place? They just allowed him to track her to the beach house? Later *Scott* killed the Lebanese national because the op went sideways (due to the greenhorn).
The simpler explanation is the one that's presented: She was unwittingly taken. The captors did not recognize her because her hair had been cut; they wanted her because she appeared blonde, and in this movie, the swarthy Arabs obsess over blondes.
The Deep State opportunistically capitalized on the coincidental death of the professor (or they engineered). The cabal put Kilmer and others under surveillance, which is weird because he was one of their proven loyalists. Then they needed to enlist other assets to assassinate the people who learned too much (never mind that such ops involve still more people than they eliminate).
I'm more forgiving of contrivances than incoherence. This story features both, but especially the latter.
While I instantly thought wheelchair man was faking when Louise's soon-to-be-murdered co-worker described him, the filmmakers also added hints that it might be Victor. There were a couple of times when we'd see the serial killer or an article about him, and then we smash cut to Victor. There was also a scene where, after talking about the strangler, Victor says he loves to work with his hands. Then there was his weirdness (claiming Louise was his fiance).
Quebec's vote for independence was odd to me, so I looked it up -- 1995. I want to say it was later that I saw the bulky answering machine. Since newspapers were flashed at us in the very beginning, I'm sure the year appears there as well, but I noticed the year when the newspapers were shown in the middle.
I'm not sure what you mean.
As far as I recall, Hawke was murdering someone, witnesses happened by, so he pretended to be a good Samaritan. He couldn't just murder Sutherland because he had a police detail watching/protecting him. Too much heat.
What puzzled me is why they bring the mother in to ID Sutherland's corpse. With an X-ray, they should be able to see if he broke the same bone as Asher.
The incompetent hit man couldn't even kill her.
And recently a mass-shooter's humanity was affirmed when a police officer remarked, "It was a bad day for him." It's difficult to imagine a similar utterance if the victims had included a half-dozen members of law enforcement. It's not impossible to imagine men who fought across a battle-field decades later reconciling and realizing they share a lot in common (and they never had much of a choice).
Sports are a proxy for war: We can understand why a Magic Johnson wanted to "destroy" Larry Bird in the 80s (and vice-versa), but now they're closer to each other than they are to many former teammates. Even more remarkable than a paroxysm of peace among men conscripted into bloodshed (and bamboozled into glorying in national violence that was supposed to be over within mere weeks) is the fact that war today between intergenerational rivals Germany and France is practically unthinkable. Time, memory, wounds, all of that.
The false note at the end is symptomatic of a larger romanticization, particularly on the criminal side (there's a similar dynamic at play in the original Point Break). I can see why a viewer connects Hanna and McCauley. That's what we're supposed to do. We're more or less equally exposed to De Niro and Pacino's characters. We don't see Hanna attending his co-workers' kids' birthday parties and graduations. All of those lived experiences are out of sight, out of mind.
I wouldn't mind seeing the movie re-cut.
There's the scene where the guys are out to dinner with their wives, and the only one without a date is De Niro. Pacino quickly takes an interest, "Who's the loner?"
McCauley secretly photographs Hanna. Smiles mischievously.
There's the scene where Voight's character says, "He's all over you."
"Vice Sergeant says Hanna likes you."
"Three marriages, what do you think that means? He's one of those guys out there, prowling around, dedicated..."
"He's a hot dog."
Show McCauley weighing this information. Considering the possibilities.
Then Vincent takes McCauley out on a coffee date. "You have a woman?"
De Niro spends time with artist-lady, and Pacino explodes in a jealous rage, "I was havin' coffee with him!"
De Niro can get away. Voight tells him he's a free man. He can't go through with it. He shocks his woman by swerving at the last moment, reassuring her. Vincent tells Justine, "You don't want a man like me."
At the end, both leave their ladies to sword fight in the field.
I'm being facetious, but it's not much more ridiculous than holding hands with a cop-killing criminal. Their profound mutual respect at the end is a false note. It doesn't make sense.
Again with the straw. I am not flummoxed at a sense of honor in fighting. This is necessary for almost all story-telling because protagonists (generally) play fair; if the hero were bested in hand-to-hand combat and desperately drew a knife, or blinded his opponent by throwing sand, then he probably wouldn't be the hero. Heroes also demonstrate mercy; they beat down the villain, but stop short of killing him. Then the villain grabs a gun, and the hero has permission to kill the bad guy, providing the audience with a cathartic moment. This is utterly elementary and requires no reference to the organized violence of yesteryear.
"The men in Heat are modern men, so are not from that earlier era and don't have the same customs, but there is something about being confronted with such violence, on a regular and iterative basis that generates this understanding..."
You're just embarrassing yourself. McCauley greenlights murdering unarmed security guards in one of the film's opening scenes -- y'know, the game theory of it. He's a bad guy, but Mann uses a common trope: He makes McCauley more sympathetic by inserting an even worse guy (a Swastika-sporting rapist-murderer). This sleight-of-hand helps promotes the false romanticization of an evil criminal (that's McCauley if you're having difficulty following along).
I guess I was able to "comprehend" the hand-holding until I wasn't. Until I thought about it. McCauley's responsible for killing and injuring umpteen people, including Pacino's blue tribesmen. Yet he holds hands and takes absolutely no satisfaction in putting the guy down.
This is another poster splashing in the shallow end of the pool. You're conflating brothers in arms with mortal enemies. From the perspective of honor culture, a member of Hanna's tribe had been claimed, which shouts out for a violent, personalized reprisal. Of course, in the coffee shop, Hanna speaks more from a post-honor culture, suggesting he will act as an agent of the state on behalf of some "poor bastard."
I don't understand how people saying 5/10 is "gross" and "pug dog." Five is the median. If it means anything, it should mean that half of the women you see are more attractive and half are less attractive. You live in a world where Angelina Jolie is in the 50th percentile?
Jolie's had many different looks. I didn't understand that 90s stardom, and I thought her face changed substantially between Hackers and Original Sin. I thought she looked as good as anyone ever has in Taking Lives. At some point she lost a lot of weight, and while this did not much change her sculpted face, her body was distractingly thin (especially in roles where she reveals a lot of skin, such as Wanted).
What a daffy non-reply. I said it's tempting -- they're not actually going to start kissing and sucking. The romanticization is that one of these guys kills the other's comrades (not 48 hours ago), but they hold hands at the end because of this abiding respect for one another.
It's also amusing the other airhead says "bingo" when you essentially restated what I had observed: In order to legitimize the drama, one must face overwhelming obstacles. To go with the chessplayer metaphor, a grandmaster doesn't defeat a 1200 player.
>Make 'em give me blowjobs
So you're a would-be sexual predator. Good to know.