MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
MavKilledGoose's Replies
<b>Kharzov Discovers Lioubov in Alice's Bed </b>
Lioubov maintains his identity as a writer in front of Alice by letting Kharzov rough him up. In the elevator, an inopportune telephone call gives Lioubov away to Kharzov. Alice tells her FSB handlers that if they do not protect her lover (Lioubov, unbeknownst to them), she'll abandon the operation. Lioubov kills Kharzov and stages the corpse to look like a mafia threat.
Alice and Liobov reunite and plot to escape it all. They dream of going to Monteral.
<b>Moscow </b>
After his head of security is murdered, Rostovski no longer feels safe and schleps Alice away with him to Moscow. She gives the FSB golden information on how Rostovski cleans his money. The script tries to ratchet up the stakes -- we're led to believe Alice is in even greater danger -- but it's somewhat muddled.
Cherakchin senses he's losing Lioubov, so he pimps out a secretary and initially refuses a request for a vacation to Canada. Eventually, he relents, cautioning Lioubov not to fall in love. Meanwhile, the CIA tells Alice that her work is almost done. The only thing she must do is let the Russian agent they've been targeting see her in a restaurant, then she'll be on a private plane to Montreal.
A member of Lioubov's team (Sandra) notices Alice's homage tattoo of a winged horse and starts to put two-and-two together. (How does she know Lioubov has a similar tattoo? Probably carnal knowledge, but there are a million possibilities. She just knows.)
In the film's best scene, Lioubov manages to get Alice to debug her phone, and the two speak. Even here Alice needlessly talks in code as she enthuses about getting away to Iran (really Montreal).
And the conclusion...
[quote]That is why McCauley ends up dying. His obsessive adherence to his principles, which he thought was what would always keep him from getting caught, is what ultimately results in his demise[/quote]
McCauley dies because he ignores an explicit principle that he cites more than once as a kind of maxim (hint: it's suggested in the title).
It's one of my all-time favorite movies, but of course there are plot-holes.
The Waingro character was necessary to jump-start the story. Was Waingro necessary for the initial heist? Should he have even been on crowd control?
At the night club meet, Hanna suddenly becomes interested because his informant used the word "Slick." He learns more about the guy, calls the station, learns more about the Cheritto's criminal history, and orders "full surveillance." What judge signs off on it?
The person in the rant makes a fair point about Kilmer's character. Seeing as how everyone else bites it, as a viewer I'm willing to accept one guy can make it out (especially since he doesn't get the girl).
Most of the original post is rather silly. The movie is a character study. On an initial watch, it's definitely over-long, but viewers want to know more about the characters, so the family life element is welcome.
How did she even knowe the PI figured out her son was guilty of the other murder? And then before he could even finish calling McConaughey, conveniently speaking in riddles, she guns him down.
McConaughey believes Louis murdered Frank by beating the tracker. So where is Louis headed? To McConaughey's house, presumably to threaten or murder his family. How does McConaughey know where he's going? The tracker.
The whole plot is beyond stupid. The rich kid hires a lawyer that worked a similar case, one where is INNOCENT client went to prison for life. THAT'S the guy you hire? The one person who can make a connection between the similar cases, but it's supposed to be "clever" because of attorney-client privilege. In reality, it's dog dumb.
You lose height when you get older. Unless you're the president. Trump went from being 6'2" to 6'3" (Celebheights now has him at 6'0.5"
Uh-huh.
1
4
6
5
3
2
Even though 2 easily has the weakest story (it's little more than a narcissistic Tom Cruise show), I gotta say it looks the best. The style can be overwhelming, and the scenes utterly ridiculous, but it has a film quality missing from, say, the third installment. The first movie has the best story, and Ghost Protocol has the best set pieces.
Adjusted for inflation, a twenty dollar expenditure would be forty-seven bucks today. And you just KNOW the studio made even more when VHS died and people, for some odd reason, insisted on building a DVD library.
It was retarded. As if any homicidal gang could keep a secret, much less Smartphone using teenagers.
And after the most recent murder, it would've been game over.
Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
Joffrey was easily the most hate-able for me, but he wasn't cunning or formidable. The best villain was Tywin. Melisandre was also an excellent villain. and her turn in the latter seasons heightens the work early on because it's open to debate.
I certainly didn't read that humongous rant, but the Mad Queen stuff rang false.
The aftermath also rang false. The finale was doshit. Daenerys says they have to move onto Winterfell and Dorne, even though the point of absolutely crushing the King's Landing was to instill fear (and besides, other kingdoms had already pledged fealty).
Tyrion also has to make an argument to Jon that Dany must go, as if he Ned Stark's spiritual heir should need convincing. Tyrion says, essentially, there's a slippery slope, and that she was always this person. Except Jon takes a liking to her in their first meeting because she's not storming King's Landing on account of sparing thousands of innocent lives. This was when she had three dragons, her full Dothraki horde, and 8,000 Unsullied (after the Battle of the Night King she lost 12,000 Unsullied, leaving her with only 25,000).
So, yeah, slippery slope, Tyrion asks Jon where the killing ends. Tyrion says that he's been a fool, and he celebrated her after she killed slavemasters because it's easy to rationalize killing slavemasters, but this puts her on a march to kill anyone she thinks deserves it. So what's his sage advice to Jon? MURDER THE BITCH. Jon's still hesitant, so Tyrion asks if he would've slaughtered non-combatants from atop a dragon. Jon says he's not sure. Tyrion says he KNOWS Jon would not.
Whoa, hold up. Tyrion, who once boasted about being an excellent judge of character but now says he's humbled and misread Daenerys... is not at all humbled when it comes to reading Jon? He now KNOWS she's a bad Targaryen and Jon's a good one? As far as this show is concerned, it'd be perfectly natural for Jon to murder her, go crazy, and then kill everyone. I apologize if this was mildly incoherent. The last season was pretty incoherent.
And MY "brand" of democracy means that all adults will get a right to vote. Not just property owning males, but women. "Will slaves get the right to vote?" No, because slavery will be abolished. "Oh, riiiiiiiiiight."
"Socialism" and "capitalism" are almost meaningless terms, distorted by decades of propaganda. Socialism as worker-controlled businesses IS practiced today, and faces many challenges. It's not easy. There's also no principled reason why a co-opt would necessarily oppose an alt-right style leader, or even an outright fascist (just as we have rigidly hierarchical corporations that market themselves as "progressive"). I'm sorry the world is more complicated than your tropes.
You really should read more.
North Korea calls itself a democratic people's republic. Is it a republic. No, of course not. Is it democratic? Not at all. They call themselves communist, so does that mean they're communist? If it fits our propaganda model, sure. Many of the figures you mention were temperamentally conservative-authoritarian.
Leftists and socialists in the US and Western Europe are not exactly keen on state executions and war, or criminalizing homosexuality. I vastly prefer strong institutions to strong leaders. But please, tell me how Norway is on the "road to serfdom" while Hungary is just peachy.
Yeah, the tyranny of democratic institutions, worker control, and a hippy-dippy aversion to war.
2
1
3
6
5
4
Five was more infuriating than four, but four was critical for setting up five.
Re: Soldiers following orders
Yeah, so they follow the very people their Queen JUST gave a speech about transforming. Paraphrasing since my HBO subscription has lapsed: "We'll go to Winterfell and Dorne and..."
If they just follow whoever comes into power, then Jon's easily pardoned. As usual, you're not making any sense.
Re: Democracy
Yes, suggesting democracy IS laughable... so why was it suggested? Why was there a loaded pause? To generate a cheap laugh.
Re: Wheelchairs...
Your counter-example is a contemporary, democratically elected leader who hid his disability. I'm not saying someone in a wheelchair cannot be a good leader. Whatever. By the way, Dorne and the Iron Islands (and everyone else) wants to be ruled by Westeros. Sansa's answer about independence wasn't contagious? "Oh, wait, fuck. I can be the sovereign? That's, like, an option now?"
Same. I am watching people who keep repeating everyone else has already said.
[quote]Jon's relationship with Ygritte had about 10000x the meaning and they had great chemistry.[/quote]
As I recall, they were alone in some of the most unforgiving terrain in the world. In addition, she was from North of the wall, he from south of the wall. Characters must overcome huge obstacles and conflicts in order to validate thier love in narrative fiction. Dany's first relationship also managed to transcend cultures.
There's conflict for Dany and Jon, but it stems from the fact that he has a stronger claim to the throne. This is undercut by neither of them being aware of such knowledge, and the fact he's not keen on being any kind of king. Their relationship is also undercut for the viewer by Jon's previous one, since we can't help but compare the two.
For Whom the Bell Tolls is the one that's gone viral. It's pretty rad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCHlCiB98N4
You're cherry-picking. And getting basic facts wrong.
Has Daenerys demonstrated empathy in the past? Certainly. More so than Sansa, if only because she's a larger more consequential character. Even from an early age, we saw Sansa gravitate toward Joffrey and lie for him.
And while she eventually walked away from Ramsay being eaten alive, they made sure that we saw her initially lean in to watch. She didn't avert her gaze because it was too sick and brutal. I gauran-fucking-tee that if Daenerys did anything similar, it would be Exhibit A. Hell, one of the first things people mention is how she reacted to her brother.
Does Sansa's behavior reveal her as a would-be mass-murderer? No. I don't think we can get from the gruesome death of Ramsay Bolton to slaughtering innocents on the street.
It would have been interesting if Dany had the girl Martha executed. After all, the little girl was committing regicide. However, we also maintain, in the current age, that someone so young cannot be (fully) accountable for their actions. Interestingly, I doubt anyone has considered the now-noble Varys guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Still, it would've moved Dany's arc along. Now she's killing children. (This could stir discussion, as Jon Snow executed Olly.)