MovieChat Forums > johnral > Replies
johnral's Replies
Good point. At about 6-10 feet, even a poor shooter could hit the Sheik's fat head. He was really too fat hide behind the girl anyway. He needed to use the 3 girls to shield himself.
This is a good point. There is no way of knowing. Even if she says it, and even if the hymen is intact, that is no proof. This is just ignorance.
Good point. Movie is really full of equally implausible stuff like this. (E.g jumping on a moving boat without getting serious injury; driving wrong way on street at high speed; avoiding hundreds of bullets; getting clear image of kidnapper in reflection in photo; every ruse working (e.g. pretending to be cop, getting into elevator).) I suspect those pipes are very well anchored. Plus, the pipes are secured to themselves to some extent. And not to be too picky -- but hot air or steam comes out. Are they using radiators to heat that hotel? Are there steam pipes in modern buildings? (I don't know.)
Later, he does offer to pay $500K for her. There is a very fine distinction (if any) between paying ransom and buying his daughter. They would have probably taken $100K at that point; or in any event far less than $500K. And when he offered to buy her for $500K, it sounded sincere; i.e. this did not sound like some ploy. I did not think he said this on the phone to the kidnapper as a ruse; it sounded sincere to me; i.e. let my daughter go or I'll kill you. (If he wanted to hear the guy's voice, then why not start to bargain with e.g. $1M? That should get a response.)
I think there was a trans gator in here. The one that ate the lady on the boat. You can tell by the bone structure.
Yes. I expected to see a Gator get on the roof. The water was high enough, and Gators had been chasing people in the streets and in the basement, so why not on the roof? I thought she was going to fall down when she (stupidly) stood up on the roof. (I mean -- after all -- by standing up she gains about 3 more feet, when the helicopter is probably at least 200 feet high; 3 feet won't make a meaningful difference. It's not like the roof is wet, or that her leg is injured, or that there are strong winds.) And I guess they've got to get into the basket themselves, and strap themselves in, with hurricane-force winds, with missing and/or injured limbs. They missed an extra 30 minutes of thrills there. Maybe the gator could get in the basket and take out the whole copter!
any port in a storm....
yes. why shave legs there? Seems a waste of precious time. Legs probably didn't need shaving either.
Well, as said at the beginning, "The Oz stuff is a dream (in the movie version)," so that point is well-understood by all. It's all a dream and/or fantasy and so anything is possible. But at some point a movie (dream-based or otherwise) must have some basic logic, or else we might as well just look into a kaleidoscope f we just want to see pretty colors, or watch any B-rated sci-fi movie if we want to stare at fanciful characters. The director must have felt some need to explain why Glinda withheld this information from Dorothy; i.e. he did not just let everything be explained by irrational behavior; and so he understood the need to have some logic to that part of the plot.
I think the truth in this is that the book was different; i.e. Dorothy wanted to leave home due to wanderlust, and so the journey to Oz actually helped her to appreciate her home and helped her to grow; but this is missing from the movie and so there is an oddity here in the movie. (I've not read the book, but I have read several comments about the book.)
Translating any book to screen is difficult, and this movie was no different, resulting I think in some wrinkles. But if one wants to say "It's all just a dream so who gives a hoot," then more power to them.
I've seen this comment about the traffic somewhere.. and I was watching the scene again recently and I went very slowly through the scene and there is actually a car that is blocking that lane of traffic (i.e. the lane beside the car with the main characters; the lane leading away from the accident). There is a white car that is pulling through that lane (from right to left in the scene), and it cannot enter the lane heading toward the accident, presumably because that lane is not moving; so there is sort of a jam there. (I suppose in theory the white car needs to just back up if possible to unjam the situation.) But there is actually an explanation in the scene for why that lane is backed up, but you've got to look very closely. It would be hard to catch in real-time. I don't think it adds anything to the scene to have that lane backed up, and so it's a little odd that it is that way. There are a couple of dudes looking out their windows back toward the scene of the crash, and so maybe that's why they are there.
This point is dead-on right. I am watching the movie right now and this is an entirely stupid part of the scene. Superman still has the strength to stumble around, and he can even tread water with the Kryptonite around his neck. Certainly he had the strength to close the lid to the box. And Superman is generally portrayed as a highly intelligent being; and so it's not credible that he was just in "shock" and could not think "hmmm - opening that box really hurt me -- so maybe I'd better close it back." They could have easily fixed this scene by at least having Superman and Lex struggle with the box lid; in his weakened condition, Superman might not have been able to overcome Luther; that would make sense. But for Superman to just stumble backward and move away from the box was silly.
I agree with your comments. This is one thing that bothered me about the movie. I did not find Daniel evil. He did some bad things, but most of them were somewhat gray. The final murder I thought was really not supported by everything leading up to that; nothing justified that, and it was not really consistent with Daniel's prior behavior. (E.g. as you note the prior murder had at least some justification.) The movie would have made more sense (and probably become more cliche) if in fact Daniel had devolved into a purely evil person (e.g. killing or torturing people for no reason, or using violence to obtain land rights etc.); but all the way along he was just mostly bad, with some good traits (e.g. seeming to occasionally show true affection for the boy; e.g. when he took the boy from the explosion and tended to him, and then got the boy a teacher; these are not acts of an evil person). His treatment toward the preacher (leading up to the murder) could be justified as his desire to show the hypocrisy of the preacher. I just found a big disconnect in Daniel's character. Perhaps if Daniel became an evil person we would be saying that this was too predictable, and the movie shows the complexity of human nature; but I found it odd.
I think this is one of the more intriguing aspects of the movie. I'm assuming that it is based on the true story. My take on it is that often people with some authority to right wrongs (or bring wrongs to light) lose their barometer on what is a real story, and what is important. They are faced with so many potential issues that a real story/issue can get buried among the chaff. For example, one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims actually escaped and was interviewed by the police, but they did not believe him and actually returned him to the serial killer; when a diligent investigation at the time could have prevented many more deaths. Police officers and lawyers and judges (and apparently the press) are confronted with many potential injustices, and they face a difficult job of sorting the real stories from the junk. And in this instance in Spotlight, perhaps the reporter just missed it years earlier. He might not have known the scope of the issue, or he might have thought it too difficult to prove, or he might simply have not believed it.
These are some good points. But there may be a distinction here. I don't mean to sound like a Harvey-defender, but there seems to be a difference between victimization of children, versus adult women. Many of the Harvey stories seem to fall into a gray area of consent, or at least acquiescence (but perhaps not all of them). The same cannot be said of the children and priests.
The movie wants to leave this in a state of uncertainty, but this is not satisfying. Much of the movie is focused on finding the killer. But any discussion of who was the real killer is sort of a moot point.
But, it doesn't make any sense that the guy in the gift shop would be the killer. There is no indication that he's a moron. As such, if he were the killer, and if thus far he had gotten away with it, he would never go out of his way to approach the victim's mother and make those statements. People are dumb, but that goes a bit far. (And I don't get the sense that he was going to kill her. Broad daylight, customers coming in etc.)
His overall role in the movie is really odd. He is from Idaho (based on license plate), and if we assume the new chief is telling the truth (no great reason to believe otherwise), then this guy was in the military and was out of the country nine months earlier. If he's not the killer (as shown by lack of DNA and as shown by his being out of country), then why would he have such an affinity for the sheriff or such an interest in this matter? And what is he doing in the town anyway? At the end of the movie, Mildred and the former cop confidently drive to Idaho to find him, strongly expecting him to be there.
His actual comments about the burning don't make sense, even for a serial killer. (He suggested that the burning body turned him on.)
In the end I find him to be a distraction that does not quite fit in any sense.
Those are all good spot-on points.
As for violence, you can include Mildred's assault on the dentist. She basically stabbed the guy.
Add to that the fact that the dentist (a licensed medical doctor) would care so much for the police chief that he would violate the standard of care by not using anesthesia (which would clearly be known by the patient); makes no sense.
Not only does Sam Rockwell change, but he seems to do so within 5 minutes based only on the chief's letter to him; a rather quick transformation.
And he chooses to come through the front of the burning building. There must be a window or another exit. Heck, the guy already smashed one window just to attack the billboard guy; so smashing windows and doors is no problem for him.
And add Mildred's act of burning the police station. Rather extreme. Plus, if there was any chance of catching the killer, she was hurting those chances by burning the evidence! Not very smart.
The argument between Mildred and her daughter prior to the murder is really extreme, and is a bit much in view of what transpired. That's just over the top. Major coincidence that two people talk about rape and then shortly thereafter one of them is raped.
I understand it's just a movie, but some degree of realism is good.
Overall liked the movie and acting. Woody is good in here.
Actually, there is one line stating, "There was no match to the DNA." So the new police chief makes that statement, but the entire scene is rather odd. One would think that the lack of a match would be the most compelling evidence, but most of the scene focuses on the fact that the guy was out of the country. Based on the guy's version at the bar, he was the only rapist; so presumably the only DNA on her would be that of the rapist. (I'm excluding the possibility of a third person's DNA being on her; i.e. someone other than her and the rapist/murderer.) And presumably some foreign DNA was found on her (else there would be no purpose in obtaining the suspect's DNA). So the only logical possibilities are that this guy was not the rapist (in which case he was just talking trash, as was suggested in the movie), or he was the rapist but someone was covering up for him. I think it was probably just some random person (i.e. not the dad or other characters in the movie), and like the police chief said, some day somebody will talk and the case will be solved that way. (And if the soldier did it, then he would not confront the mother in her shop. That's just way beyond stupid.)
I agree with you. That confession tape was poorly reasoned. The tape is proof-positive against Walt. The issue is then whether the drug crimes can be pinned on Hank. There are certainly some times to Hank (e.g. the Hit on Hank, the money for Hank's PT), but on the whole I don't think they could have ever linked Hank to all of this. The tape alone, even combined with a few random connections, would not have been enough. Especially these days with things like cell phone records and GPS data (even in 2008 perhaps) and security cameras everywhere, it's difficult to make someone into a drug kingpin when it's inconsistent with everything in his life; there's just no trail. Hank would have an excellent explanation in that he was going to bust Walt, and so that's why Walt made the tape.
I tend to agree. Somewhere around her Walt went too far. Not only did his character cross to the dark side so much as to make him unlikable, but it also made him unrealistic. The situation with Gale was complicated because it was the best way to save their lives, and arguably Gale would have done the same to them; but even those factors make the outright murder of a nerd pretty bad...
This is a good list. People will not agree on this, but all of these things (except the bitch face) can be explained. It must be remembered that she married a chemist, not a drug-dealer. Her husband chose a life of crime (serious felonies) that put him and the family in jeopardy (killers entering the house -- Jessie wanting to burn the house, etc.), and he lied to her (e.g. the Fugue state...) and put her through a lot of stress, and refused to leave the house, and on and on and on. Some people would say that in view of that situation, all of her actions described above were well-justified (or at least explained as a normal human reaction to stress). (Smoking during pregnancy isn't cool -- but it probably ain't gonna kill nobody...)