MovieChat Forums > Shannon82 > Replies
Shannon82's Replies
I remember the TZ episode. The mother encouraging her daughter to do it freaked me out.
Much of what Joanna did and didn't do, seems like the trope for every horror movie. Running straight to the evil men's association thinking she can outwit outfight the monsters is typical. Them she allows Diz to take the poker from her hand before screaming and running away.
I get the movie was supposed to be addressing issues. But, making the women brain dead before they become brain dead, seems to defeat the point.
Aside from how hideous the concept is, I'm trying to look at it from the men's perspectives. The main villain, Diz, attempted some ridiculous explanation, that were the situation reversed, an aging woman would be thrilled to have a young stud drooling over her and catering to her every whim. Really? Apart from being incredibly shallow and boring...these are robots. Mechanical, plastic things being programmed to say and do everything. How could anyone be flattered by that?
Yes. Seems expensive and inconvenient to have robots. Not to mention silly.
My impression is that it parallels the scene when Rachel is bathing. Clearly they care for each other very much. Rachel lets John know she wants him, and of course hopes he will stay. John's response is that if they make love their relationship is sealed, forcing him to stay or Rachel to go. He looks away to let her know he can't act on their feelings. She understands. When John is leaving, he is looking at her in the same manner, as if asking her to come with him. Rachel looks away to let him know she can't act on their feelings. He understands. It is a sad and grown-up acceptance that they must live in such separate worlds without each other.
I don't think she was so horrible that she deserved to die. I didn't care for her, though. As for the clippings, I found it was she who had the self-involved entitled attitude, not Tony. Instead of being supportive of his career, she whined when he did it, while expecting him to give it up to cater to her. She refers to the career she whined about as boring. That's belittling, demeaning and the put-down is delivered while her lover is right there. Apparently all she does is galavant around. Albert Hall, Plays, Dinner engagements, lunch, yet, begrudged Tony going out for the evening as if she never gets to go anywhere. Additionally, she is playing both men, by protesting that Tony has changed, while stringing Mark along with kisses and Tony with "darling" ad nauseam. Again, none of this justifies murder or the wrongful conviction with an execution looming. It's simply that the betrayal, dishonesty and snooty arrogance made her quite unlikable.
Murder mystery novels and films were huge in the 30s and 40s. There was absolutely nothing unique about it. The only thing slightly different about this novel is that she chooses to let her husband kill her. Otherwise, I can't imagine anything more boring than yet another murder mystery.
I wouldn't call Johnny facing prison all honky-dory. The movie is designed to show the critical moments. Clearly weeks, or even months passed that we weren't privy to that certainly suggests that they had a loving relationship. In any case, they loved and needed each other. Both grew up, in the end. The psychology and love between the two is far more interesting than gigolo murders wife. There was quite enough of that with Erle Stanley Gardner flooding the market, especially with Perry Mason, or Agatha Christie and countless others.
Johnny's a cad, a gambler, a gigolo, interested in murder mysteries, trying to borrow on his wife's life insurance, etc., we nauseam. Of course he is being portrayed as a murderer; it's boring. Of course he won't get away with it; they never do, and the idea that he might is equally boring. The genre is flooded with those kinds of movies. If Hitchcock really did want to make a cliched murder for money movie, then my opinion of him just plummeted. The ending a bit too expository. Maybe less words and fewer explanations allowing the viewers to explain the apparently happy ending for themselves. As I think about it Hitchcock did tend towards those expositions in the end. I wonder why.
Since Joe's boss orchestrated the con, he would know exactly what the book looked like.
Good God. Get over yourself. This movie is hilarious.It's not about your or anyone else's messed up gender identity.
Thank you. 🌻
Probably.
That's the only way you would get it? Shot in the stomach would leave him dead before he would be able to get to the office, let alone tell his story. Weakening from blood loss from a shoulder wound is much better. Ordinarily I wouldn't say this; but, you should go dumb yourself down with a less sophisticated movie that you can "get".
What are you talking about? Walter Neff, shot weakened and bleeding, is leaving a Dictaphone message to confess to his friend his part in the murder. He's not dead.
I'm so glad you made this comment. I have always been engaged by Cummings. I think he is mistaken for being wooden in Dial M for Murder because his character is "acting" throughout the movie. I'm sure it's awkward to act friendly towards Tony, while having an affair with his wife. He is clearly bored with the idea of the stag party. He would be self conscious and self censoring to avoid giving himself away.
People tend to judge harshly when they don't explore beneath the surface.
No, we are talking about reasonable responses. Very life threatening food toxins and sharp objects in food happens all the time The number of hospitalizations and recalls, this week alone, is staggering. Whereas a real bullet in a movie PROP gun?!
But you did respond, argumentative and dismissive. Did you miss the part about actors affecting realism? That's what we praise actors for, "pulling the trigger."
And why post on a discussion board, if you aren't interested in various viewpoints. If you are looking only for agreement, stand in front of a mirror and talk to yourself.
You go right ahead. Just make sure you thoroughly examine and redo everything your mechanic, gasman, electrician etc does. Any prop, toy, accessory etc. should be thoroughly examined as well. Oh yeah, make sure you send any food you are about to serve your family or guests to the lab. Probably a good idea to puree all the food to prevent choking. In fact, how dare you get into your car without examining every aspect of it for hours. The hell with the experts, turn off your gas, electricity and just walk to work.
It was a prop gun, cleared by 2 experts. An actor doing what actors do to affect realism pulled the trigger. Stop acting like that isn't done a million times in millions of scenes in thousands of movies for decades.
She was in direct line of the actor as part of her job, clearly choreographing and taking the picture. Realism, that we praise and hand out awards for, and whine about on boards like these when fails to be realistic, is good acting. Of course a good actor would pull the trigger.
And your racing towards the target in your car is an absurd comparison. People get in accidents all the time because of brake failure and don't need to be speeding and slamming on brakes to cause death and injury.
What's true over here should be true over there. We rely on experts and praise realism in film. Period.
What difference does that make? He had absolutely no reason to believe the gun was loaded. We rely on experts all the time. Do you second guess your mechanic when he tells you your brakes are fine an refuse to start your car? Do you check your child's stuffed animal every 5 minutes to make sure it doesn't turn into a real bear? I don't understand why people can't accept that he is an actor doing what actors do, which is mimic reality, with no reason to do otherwise.