MovieChat Forums > Shounenbat
Shounenbat (27)
Posts
Replies
Didn't the Timmy years end with him moving to Australia? Bet the kid didn't even survive one day.
I enjoyed both, but I agree with a lot of your post. The original took the book had revenge as a prominent theme, but not in a glorifying way where Rooster Cogburn's style of "justice" brings peace and closure. It consumes Mattie and ultimately destroys her, even if she yet lives. I can see John Wayne wanting to turn the book into a fun romp through the Wild West where he helps a girl get her revenge and then rides away to have more adventures, but it does change from the book considerably.
Again, I enjoy both versions, but for different reasons. I didn't mind Glen Campbell or Kim Darby (although it would've been interesting to see Karen Carpenter in the role), and I liked the slower pace. I don't like it when a story feels like it's whizzing by, so older films are better paced in my opinion. However, the newer version is slightly better.
This comment is old now, but I'm going to have to agree with you regarding John Wayne. He felt more like he was playing himself than Rooster Cogburn to me, but you never really went to see his films in hopes of seeing him put on a performance that wasn't John Wayne. Don't destroy me, though, because I haven't seen all of his films.
I suppose I also like the ending of the 2010 one better, as it follows the book's ending. John Wayne's ending seemed really corny. I mean, it's not the worst ending, but it very... I don't know.
Six years too late, apparently, but, yes, this is the film.
I agree! The 1940 remake felt more like a Spanish Robin Hood than a Zorro film.
Well, it was until some time travelers from outer space showed up and caused her to get hit by a car...
She also voiced Sweet Polly Purebread in Underdog.
Charles just goes through life like a video game. All those people with problems are potential side quests, and completing them can get you stuff.
And the PTSD from the rape is temporary, the cure is to fall in love. After all, the one truly suffering from your rape is a boy with a crush on you, and his father will spend his time reassuring him that your resulting pregnancy wasn't actually because you cheated on him. Remember, his feelings are more important than the fact that you were raped, and someone obviously wants you killed.
Valjean's sister's family was literally starving, though. She had a mess of kids and no way to feed them, so he stole bread. That's a far cry from heading to the bank because of an economic downturn, stealing a vast sum of money, and killing two people before hiding the loot in your child's toy.
As for OP's initial post, I think Powell is the bigger villain. Ben Harper's wrongdoing ultimately lead to Powell becoming fixed on his family and the hidden money, but I also take the character of each person into consideration.
Ben Harper did evil with good intentions. Even if I don't think his situation was so dire as to warrant bank robbing, he clearly didn't do it out of malice. Most of us who have messed up in life can say that we did the things we did without intent to actually hurt anybody, because of the greater good, or just because it seemed like the right and moral thing to do at the time. That's where Ben Harper is, in my mind.
Harry Powell, on the other hand, knows what he's doing is wrong. In his own disturbed mind, he may think God is smiling at his actions, but he knows society will condemn him for what he's doing. He's got a body count, he's greedy, and he'll stop at nothing to get what he wants. He's not doing what he's doing because he thinks he's making the world a better place, he's doing it to get ahead himself, regardless of how many people he destroys in the process.
His good demeanor is a facade to keep suspicion off of him and to draw more potential victims into his sphere of influence. That makes him far worse than Harper, even if he wouldn't ever have heard of the $10,000 if it weren't for becoming his cellmate.
View all replies >