MovieChat Forums > Fluffyudders > Replies
Fluffyudders's Replies
One could hope that there's a mystery there to be solved, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Good question. I suppose it supports the idea that they were just messing around when the gun went off by accident - they panicked and chased her. In a panicked state there's less logic to their actions, though whose phone did they call from?
I think it's left deliberately ambiguous. There is certainly the suggestion implied that the adoption papers were forged to cover up for his illegitimate child. Given the photo with "I love your smile - TW" on the back, there was certainly SOMETHING there, and she can't have started off crazy otherwise she wouldn't have been working there in the first place. It's impossible to know what was real and what wasn't, but you could draw any conclusion ranging from "The mother is completely insane" all the way to "The mother is completely sane, the adoption and mental illness were all fabrications from Thomas Wayne to cover up the scandalous truth". Depends how much you like conspiracy theories, I suppose.
Yes! Just watched it because I'm seeing Joker next week and I kept hearing a lot of comparisons being made to this film, which I had never seen before. I was aware of it being a Scorsese that I hadn't seen and decided to watch it for some context. Great film! Though I'm not sure I would call it a comedy, but then I'm not sure what else I would call it. A very strange kind of comedy, like an extremely dark cringe comedy, almost like Nighty Night but with less evil.
The comedy was only ok, middle of the road stuff, but there are a few additional points to make.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that the comedy was really just him talking about his terrible upbringing, which is what made his story all the more tragic. His coping mechanism for his shitty childhood was in trying to turn it into a giant joke, but the further he went into his monologue the more uncomfortable it became, which leads me into the second point...
...do we know for sure that the audience were laughing? I think it's deliberate that we never actually see their reactions, we only hear their laughter much like an earlier scene in which he is rehearsing his routine in his basement. As there are multiple other 'fantasy' scenes played out from his imagination, how much can we really be sure happened? The laughter, and his fame and fortune afterwards, could all just be more of his fantasy. That's open to interpretation.
Lastly though, I find it somewhat ironic that his uncomfortable brand of comedy is something that was quite ahead of its time. The highly personal almost self-offensive brand of comedy he utilises doesn't at all match the kind of comedy a show of that nature would have and I can't imagine it would have come across as funny, either on the fictional Jerry Langford show or to the audiences watching this movie upon release. However it is a style of dark comedy that became quite a bit more popular 10-15 years later. The reason I say I find this ironic is that he instructs his introduction to include the line "the future of comedy", which in a strange way was almost prophetic.
I would also like to know this. I can't help but get the impression it was quite a long time, as I can't believe that Jack getting his show back on the air, wealthy enough to be driving around in a limo again, and in discussion to host a talk show and star in a new sitcom, could have all happened quickly. I think 6 months is a conservative estimate, I would wager it was at least a year.
Yes, I think so.
When he first sees Jack's face after fighting off the thugs he appears shocked, and later in the basement he says "I know who you are". I think the doubt of his knowledge comes not from a lack of evidence, but a lack of response - people would expect him to go crazy in some way. However he also states later that for whatever reason he felt personally responsible, which might explain why he held no ill will towards Jack.
Moviechat is still alive for now, you must bring more people here, it's the only way!
Yeah but I think that was the point - he was a massive asshole, and despite what he had been through once his opportunity for success came back he appeared to have learned nothing. I had a horrific moment of doubt thinking the film would end like that, but thankfully he went on to have his epiphany. Ultimately he was the Fisher King, it just took him a little while to realise it.
Personally I would have given it to Juliette Lewis for Cape Fear, but this would come second.
Slave Jason Momoa?
But yeah, humanity is gonna get real complicated when everyone can have their perfect partner manufactured. Basically a physical Joi that does everything and anything you want, never complains, and loves you unconditionally.
I agree with this assessment, but it does raise the question of the tracker - how did the powers that be know she was to be invited?
In fact, this could imply that the powers that be were actually in full control of Joi, but only delicately manipulated her actions to make things go the way they wanted. This makes her final 'execution' all the more cruel.
This is an unbelievably deep topic and the replies to this post could stretch 1000 pages and only start scratching the surface. For the sake of brevity, I would suggest drawing your own conclusions.
I'm with you on this one. I guess some people just can't appreciate good cinematography. I wonder how these people felt about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a movie that always engages you and yet constantly feels almost completely devoid of substance?
Saw this a few nights ago.
*SPOILERS*
He gets beat up quite bad but is picked up by a local journalist. It takes him 4 days to recover. During that time the girl is repeatedly drugged, beaten and raped. Once he finds her and rescues her he takes her back to the States, but she doesn't survive the journey and dies (which to be honest I really didn't think they would do). Rambo is mad as shit. The 'bad guys' are two brothers, he goes back to Mexico and brutally murders one, in order to lure the other brother and all his men back to his tunnels, where he systematically murders everyone.
During the interrogation, he asks her for exact dates but she cannot remember, it having been so many years ago. However she mentions her beloved dog, and having first gotten him when he was 10 weeks old at the time. Having one more question and knowing she loved her dog, he asked for the dog's birthday. From the date given, he could add 10 weeks and then know the date he asked for originally.
Actually no I don't think he did. While I've not read the books so I can't be sure, I would find it hard to believe that he would know that and then not ask her what she was planning to do with TWO BILLION EUROS, which is a frankly insane amount of money. I find it very hard to believe that he would know she had effectively stolen that much money and just casually shrug it off....