MovieChat Forums > Fluffyudders > Replies
Fluffyudders's Replies
I really shouldn't reply. This post is over 4 years old, I should just let it go.... but I can't. This list is TERRIBLE. The only funny film on this list is Grimsby, White Chicks is notorious for being one of the LEAST funny films (that was meant to be funny) ever made, and you're missing all the actually funny films. No Team America?? Come on....
Good point, well made. Thanks.
Gotta say Marnie is one of my favourites, a far more psychological take than Hitchcock's usual fare. Rutland's (Sean Connery) obsession with 'fixing' Marnie is explained, but it's left up to the viewer to deduce rather than being spelled out, which gives a much more natural feel to proceedings but runs the risk of viewers being left in the dark if they don't put the pieces together.
It is established fairly early in the movie that Rutland was an expert in Zoology and fascinated with animal psychology, particularly female psychology, and also psychology of the criminal mind. He boasts about training a Jaguar to trust him, this is like a hobby to him. Though he was captivated by her beauty, it was more her mind that got him obsessed. Could he apply what he knew to this obviously troubled woman? He is himself a flawed character, with an unhealthy desire to 'fix' things or show dominance over others by essentially bringing them to heel.
There is no healthy connection, even at the end Marnie will not suddenly be ok now that the truth is out, but that is the nature of this relationship warts and all. This is not meant to be a romance.
The funny thing is, in Marnie's case, the suggestion they had sex was too much, but implied rape was absolutely fine. Which makes me wonder - was the real issue the idea that a woman might actually want to have sex? Perhaps the implied rape was ok because it was 'all him'?
Your list is missing Team America, and is therefore invalid.
Don't mind me, just posting on this 16 year old thread to add my praise for this underrated gem. They just don't make them like this anymore...
Honestly, just got back from seeing this, and I can't understand the low scores. Sure it's not going to win any awards, but it's not a BAD film, it's perfectly fine. Not sure why everyone has turned on this so hard.
To be happy.
There seems to be a lot in this film that is left for the viewer to figure out (like the colonic enema scene) but my take on this is that the owners of Leisureland know all about the slums, but don't acknowledge it. The bus travels there after all, and the area seemed to have some kind of net over it that looked impossible for the residents to have constructed. It also seems to be constructed at the rear where no-one else will see it. In the ten years or so that Leisureland had been operating, it's safe to assume there were several cases of downsized people who ran out of money or had nowhere to go, and they wouldn't want homeless people disrupting their "zero crime" squeaky clean image.
They seem to be people who have fallen through the cracks for one reason or another. There doesn't seem to be any system in place for social services, or even healthcare insurance. Everyone that goes in is completely reliant on their savings. In the case of the dissident, she was already small (as a punishment apparently) and needed medical help. Once she got it there was no money and she had nowhere to go. The lady she was looking after came in with her husband whose head exploded (they didn't remove a gold tooth) who I assume had all the money, and it went elsewhere in his death, so she had nothing.
I find it hard to believe that there are so many people with such unfortunate circumstances, but it's also pointed out that the other residents aren't interested in helping them out.
That second point was so well done. The way he's talking like he's a hacker and just does a Google search, it's very real as well. I imagine most people who know their way around a computer would do the same thing first regardless.
I also liked:
3. The family in the beginning asking about the dead woman's last words, when it was an awkward racist rant.
4. The fact that Tony gets the perfect opportunity to use his star at the end, manages to hit an almost perfect shot, but it still only really serves as a distraction rather than some badass kill he was probably expecting. Also him then awkwardly not knowing what to do next.
5. The antagonist greedily searching the fireplace safe for cash/jewels, pulling out a ton of stocks/shares probably worth a fortune and not realising their value.
6. The detective being personally offended by Ruth's amateur detective work.
7. Tony's morningstar.
Interesting theory, but I don't think it's true. Not that I believe everything has to be spoon-fed to the audience, but I feel that there would have been at least some subtle comment about the architect going missing, or debts causing him to move out. Also, while I've only seen the film once, I seem to remember seeing a picture of the architect at one point, and it wasn't the same man.
Batman is about Batman.
Given he murdered someone on live television, I doubt he could have remained free for long. However, the complete lack of security allowing him to murder her at the end and skip away is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Joker is an unreliable narrator (besides his 'gf', which is made quite obvious). I'm left wondering where they would take a sequel, so perhaps it confirms the final scene as a fantasy, and starts where this film ends, chronicling how he went from fleeting icon of the disenfranchised masses to Gotham's most notorious crime lord, feared by all. Of course there are those who argue most of the events of the film could be his fantasy, but I doubt they would take that route for a sequel.
Ditto.
The sad thing is that DC have actually released a ton of pretty great movies over the last decade. They just mostly happen to be animated....
Once Upon a Time in America is one of the best movies out there, provided you watch the right cut. It's a fantastic film.
The Irishman is actually quite dull, and certainly one of the worst gangster movies put out by Scorcese (though admittedly, that's a pretty high bar)
I actually found The Irishman quite dull, and far too long. It's better than most of the nominees, but I feel the same way about Joker that you do about this film. Only 1917 comes close.
There's two important things you have to bear in mind with this comparison.
Firstly, the free software is being used on the already de-aged characters from the movie. If the free software was applied to how the actors actually looked, it wouldn't be anywhere near as good.
Secondly, even though the free software makes them look younger, with bigger eyes and more vibrant skin, they also look simpler and more cartoon-like, with most of the detail in the texture missing. I guarantee you the original will hold up far better than this free software version will.
Maybe a little - I've edited my post just slightly to make my statement clearer.