MovieChat Forums > Baluga
Baluga (64)
Posts
After seeing a movie i regularly go look up whether the actor is still alive
Why did Annie chase Peter and did nothing when she had him?
Weirdo
Should only the gunslinger have malfunctioned?
He shouldn't have let her in
Solozzo paying Tattaglia from his share = they earn more than Corleone's?
Kynette ruined by dialougue
Is the murder/dismemberment of the guy in the stopped car true?
Great as music video - Bad as movie
View all posts >
Replies
No i don't do those things
I just couldn't take the monster seriously and the movie wasn't interesting anymore. It picked up again when we got to follow the old guy's shopping and visits and the whole revelation, but by then the movie was alrrady ending.
Yes. She isn't really my responsibility and given the profession i'm in i'm already exposed as it is. Why would i put my life at risk or compromise my anonymity for some random civilian? He literally ended up dead because of it.
It was exciting to find out just what kind of situation she had gotten herself into, the sense that "something is off" yet nothing obvious has happened. I loved how she was laying in bed at night and the door just opened!
The dungeon exploration was exciting aswell - until it turned out to be guarded by a grey, dark-dwelling monster. By the time she was trying to feed the captives it had gotten completely goofy and all the horror elements had fizzled out.
I finished the movie as a mere formality of watching through what i'd already started.
Nothing confirms that there needed to be a breaking point. And it still doesn't really explain what she would've done if she caught him...
Why is it plausible to have her come back? She's a murder survivor and decades have gone by. Now there's a new copycat killer on the loose and for some reason she has to return. Who does that anyway? She's not a reporter of any kind nor part of a federal agency or a local policeforce.
Aside from being a popular character why the hell would she get involved as a <i>person</i>?
I don't think it's neccessarily chronoligical based on that reason alone. He could still be different characters and find his clothes in only one of the movies. The fact remains that neither the adventures nor any of the characters he meet are set up in a way that there is continuity/history in regards to Blondie.
My take on it is that the clothes and mannerisms are the same because it's iconic and not to because it's the same guy. It's just a re-used personality.
Yes but that's my point. Since Eastwood meets different characters it would make sense that he's a different character aswell. It would've been cheap otherwise, the idea that a plot has recycled actors just come back with a new name.
When those 2 were different characters it automatically differentiated Eastwood aswell. It concluded that he's living different lives meeting different people. His lifestyle is different in all the movies.
But the most important factor i would say is what the actual script says. If it doesn't conclude continuity between Blondie 1, 2 & 3 then the assumption should be that there is none. There's nothing intertwining the adventures neither by Blondie nor anyone else around him.
No because in Taxi Driver he's atleast shown to be institutionalized and later alive. It would be ambiguous at best.
Here you have 2 different Lee Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volontè characters meeting Blondie, therefor it would only make sense that he too is a different person in each one of them. The fact that he dresses the same does feel unneccessary but it could've just been considered iconic and stayed at that, it doesn't have to be reason for a whole continuity in every aspect.
They are not the same person even though they share the same name and actor.
View all replies >