MovieChat Forums > Shounenbat > Replies
Shounenbat's 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.
Just watched it last night. Tonight is The Great Pumpkin.
It's a shame, as Mary Anning was a very interesting person in real life. Her achievements were often stolen by those around her, and even though she wasn't an educated scientist, they discovered and correctly identified many, many species.
Why they have to turn her story into a romantic one, heterosexual or otherwise, is beyond me. Would having a lead with no romantic interests who has to deal with the prejudice of her own time be too boring for people nowadays?
One day we'll get a biopic of Dr. Mantel and have him leave his wife to pursue a gay relationship. After all, being one of the first modern fossil hunters is too boring of a life! Have to bring in the woke crowd to win that Oscar.
Jumping into the conversation super late, but I thought the pact should've been considered broken once Mephisto decided to sabotage Faust's efforts to woo Gretchen.
I love the Assassin's Creed games! I've not had the pleasure of playing Odyssey yet, but I loved Origins! Especially the Discovery Tour.
Come to think of it, I don't remember any ads either! Such a shame that there's so little interest in antiquity, especially since Hollywood is so fond of adding filler and twisting things around. They could easily add filler to the lives of these ancient people because it's not like we have a complete enough biography of many of them to cry historical inaccuracy.
I can't figure out why Bela was hanging around, telling fortunes when he knew what was up. You'd think he'd have gotten away from where people hang out or locked himself up somewhere instead of continuing to read tarot cards and palms until just moments before he was set to transform. His mom also seemed to have some ability to stop the curse (she caused, I think, Larry to turn back into a human when he was caught in a trap), yet Larry never tries to retrieve the pendant.
There are a ton of inconsistencies in the film. Apparently, after transforming into a killing machine, he decides to put on a new shirt. The villagers are idiots for assuming the attacks were done by a wolf. Lon Chaney Jr.'s bite would have been nothing like Bela since his far more man than wolf. Not to mention, he's bipedal, so his tracks wouldn't have been the same as a wolf's, either.
Like you, I always thought Larry was pretty stalkerish and creepy. The lady says "no" firmly several times, yet he insists on coming to see her. I suppose that's partly because back in the day it was considered okay, even romantic, to assume "no" means "yes, but I don't realize it yet!" By today's standards, it comes off as creepy.
On that note, I was wondering what the original script was! I've never heard that there was a different script and I'm intrigued, even though your comment is five years old...
I thought so too. It doesn't help that I actually know some guys, some of them a lot older than Stingray, who try to hang with teens in the same way. It's like they never left that high school mentality. They aren't harmful, just kind of odd.
I'm not sure. By naming it "The Karate Kid" they were clearly trying to let audiences know what it's a remake of. Unfortunately, seeing as how it has no karate in it and the title only furthers the crappy stereotype that kung fu/karate and China/Japan - all the same thing! I think that's what ticked people off the most.
In my opinion, they should have called it "The Kung Fu Kid."
I wasn't disturbed by it (and I don't hate it), but I felt it was way too melodramatic. I'm going to liken it to New Who (Doctor Who) as opposed to Classic Who. This is a little bit simplistic, and by no means is the classic show perfect, but here's what I'm getting at:
The classic series told a story over multiple episodes, thus allowing the writers to focus on world building and characters. The Doctor didn't necessarily know everything about a planet the second they landed on it, allowing the audience to follow his train of thought as he and his companions uncover what's going on. We really get to know the characters, so we get invested in them and their goals.
The new series is very self-contained and episodic. In only a single episode (sometimes two), an entire story is told. Because of the time constrains, the Doctor must be very knowledgeable already when he arrives. That way you don't have to world build, you just listen to the Doctor tell you how the world works and what its people are like. No biggie, I suppose, but then you get to the characters. Because they lack the time to really develop, most of the writers rely on a combination of quirks, gimmicks, and melodrama to pull emotion from the audience. Many of them die, and their deaths can be quite dramatic. Lots of crying, screaming, blaming, etc. While it's occasionally warranted, most of the time it's just a cheap way to get a reaction when they could get more genuine ones by simply fleshing the characters out and not relying on the audience's primal empathy to make them form an attachment during a period of grief and violence.
That's kind of how I felt about the way the dinosaurs are treated in this. They're either filling their role as the agents of action or being put into bizarre and unrealistic scenarios (someone seriously built an expensive theme park on an island that has an active volcano?) meant to evoke an emotion. It's lazy and can easily be overcome with some better writing.