MovieChat Forums > MariannIAm > Replies
MariannIAm's Replies
Wow. Quite brazen then for them to say that that the teacher "didn't plagiarize his Harvard classmate but that the guy plagiarized him". Think they could have changed up some stuff in the film if they were going to do so but apparently they were too full of themselves to do so.
I know this is a super old thread but I just got done watching the film.
I am fairly positive that Gordo would have gone back to the house to pick up the video/audio evidence and Bateman is left with nothing to prove to anyone...kind of how Bateman left Gordo with all those years ago. Without proof he's going to look awfully stupid "making this all up" to his wife when she's already kicked his butt to the curb. There is nothing that will redeem him now -- and I believe the prior ability showing how easy it was for Gordo to go in and out of houses...well, he'll just go back into the house when Bateman is trying to repair his marriage and now work on keeping a career...Gordo will just use another of his keys and hightail it out of there before Bateman is the wiser. I don't think Gordo is that stupid to leave it there. The seed is planted in Bateman's brain and having to ask the doctors for a blood draw from the baby for a DNA test -- not even sure how that works. Do both parents have to agree to it? But...awkward to Bateman and his perfect narcissist sociopath self and I think the doubt will fester in him which is what Gordo is banking on as well.
And Gordo never raped her. She and him undoubtedly talked more when he was hooking up the computer to the tv and such...so as Bateman pointed out...she was a female "Gordo" in school - so I think they both were sympathetic to each other...and Gordo wouldn't do anything to hurt HER - he opened her eyes and spared her further gaslighting by Simon and also her newborn son. Simon wouldn't have been the doting father - but the controlling and manipulating one. He already had his wife's self-esteem taken away by how he treated her after she undoubtedly had to seek counseling for a miscarriage and was prescribed pills she probably didn't abuse. Or maybe she tried to kill herself as he kept telling her the miscarriage was her fault. Either way...he was gaslighting her big-time.
I know this is a very old thread, but I just saw the film...and I wanted to point something out which I thought was the case.
I don't think Gordo originally set out to ruin Bateman's life. I think he ran into him either by seeing him in the store or maybe following him into there after recognizing him on the street. I mean it was basically close to where they both grew up. I think he was figuring that Bateman would have said, "Oh, geez...I am so sorry for what I did when I was in school...I was an idiot and glad I'm not a jerk anymore...yadda yadda..." but with a sincere apology that was made because he, Bateman, grew up and wasn't like that as he matured. But...Gordo seeing the Gordo/Weirdo note in the kitchen just brought back all bad memories and the realization that the guy was still a jerk in all likelihood. THEN is when he set about getting back at him...but never to get back at his wife as his wife was sympathetic to him and they both probably had longer talks when he came by the few times and all. I mean they weren't going to show all the dialogue when he was hooking up their TV to get it to work and all...but I figure he realized she was a nice person; Bateman, however, was not.
The lure to the rich peoples' house with the audio recorded cemented the fact that he's a horrible person and probably lied his way climbing the corporate ladder.
Gordo also would never have raped her as he liked and respected her too much and never wanted anything bad to happen to her. I also believe that Gordo went back into the house after Bateman was having his hospital meltdown to retrieve the CDs so there was no evidence that Bateman could show his wife. It will just always be in his mind. Does he ask the doctors to do a blood draw so he can do a DNA check? I mean when exactly DO you bring that up to anyone? Or does it fester in your little horrid lying narcissistic sociopath brain? I think it festers. I'm thinking Gordo is banking on that.
Most homes now have a guest bathroom and then one off the main bedroom. I figure that Lucy had a humongous house that had at least two bathrooms if not three or more. Most people would never put their own medicine in any other cabinet than the private bathroom which only they use. I thought it was a bit silly - but it's not beyond the scope of reasoning. People used to do this all the time before having the private bathroom area. And yes, people would rummage through them.
I think it was implied that (or at least I thought)...since he was so good at getting in and out of houses -- he would retrieve the evidence when Bateman was trying to convince his wife to take him back. Without that evidence he's going to look like he's really gone off the deep end to her...IF he even says it. But, yeah...I think Gordo got into his car and took the things back. Bateman didn't exactly pick them all up and put them in his car, after all.
I think that a lot of people didn't catch the subtle clues (some of which weren't that subtle) that he pretty much was Gaslighting her throughout their marriage. I would figure it went down something like this: She had a miscarriage after trying to have a baby...but as she had her much more successful business than he did...him, being the narcissistic sociopath he was...started harping on her about it. In order to deal with it all, she turned for help from a psychiatrist/therapist who put her on some meds so she could sleep at least (she does say to him that those meds she took were only to sleep and that she never took them during the day). At the parties they went to, she clearly abstained from alcohol as i'm sure he made her out to be totally unstable and not able to cope...and how she had to turn to alcohol and drugs...even if she didn't abuse either.
He got a job offer which would force her to leave hers in the city but he "assured" her she could just do it remotely. He had no desire for her to be more successful...and he only climbed the corporate ladder by having made up dirt (as was evidenced by what he did to poor Donny MacDonald) on other people.
Whenever he complimented her...he made sure to follow the line up with something that would resonate that made it look like she would again doubt her mental stability (gaslighting).
Yes, she totally loved him. Yes, she was the female Gordo/Weirdo in school as he even threw that in her face. Heaven knows what else she confided in him that he would periodically throw in her face but I bet there was a lot. I had been married to someone for 28 years, and a good 21 of them he was Gaslighting me. No fun. One day you do "wake up" -- she woke up in time to spare her child the same future.
I saw him in a film I never heard of a couple months ago called "Bad Words". He plays a real jerk in that one...but in a good way and very entertaining. In fact I was surprised as anything that this film even was made considering how everyone can't say anything without people getting bent out of shape.
Anyway...this film was very good as well. I love Bateman being a jerk. :)
I would think that gold weighs pretty much the same as gold. ;)
Actually the original proverb is "you can't eat your cake and have it, too". That was also one of the lines of the Unabomber's manifesto which stood out as Ted Kaczynski's writings and was key to linking it to him. When you really think about it, it makes a LOT more sense in that context than the one we've been led to believe our entire lives.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002762.html
I totally agree that she couldn't act. I found myself wanting to turn the film off repeatedly because her performance in every single one of the scenes was not a natural way to move or to talk. The way she kept grabbing at her father and her daughter was really disturbing, too. The only thing I can say where I wasn't thinking she was just so unnatural was reading the book. But, even then, I didn't like her voice...but I could let that slide as I've known some people whose voice sounded like that. Hell, I don't like my voice, but I can't really change it. But they made a conscious effort to cast her in this role, which was not a secondary role or anything and I feel it ruined the entire film for me. I didn't mind the little girl, but I thought her staged dialogue was just too ridiculous, even for a methodical killer child. The only one I thought who did a great job was Henry Jones as the caretaker guy. I honesty don't see why this film has the hype that surrounds it. To me it was less enjoyable than a lot of B sci-fi ones of the same era.
I totally agree that she couldn't act. I found myself wanting to turn the film off repeatedly because her performance in every single one of the scenes was not a natural way to move or to talk. The way she kept grabbing at her father was really icky, too. The only thing I can say where I wasn't thinking she was just so unnatural was reading the book. But, even then, I didn't like her voice...but I could let that slide as I've known some people whose voice sounded like that. Hell, I don't like my voice, but I can't really change it. But they made a conscious effort to cast her in this role, which was not a secondary role or anything and I feel it ruined the entire film for me. I didn't mind the little girl, but I thought her staged dialogue was just too ridiculous, even for a methodical killer child. The only one I thought who did a great job was Henry Jones as the caretaker guy. I honesty don't see why this film has the hype that surrounds it. To me it was less enjoyable than a lot of B sci-fi ones of the same era.
I know you said this six years ago...but thank you. Thank you so much! I never knew this existed. :)
My mother had me when she was 42 - my father was four years older than her. I had a brother and sister who were 14 and 13 years older than I am. It happens.
Also, I found nothing weird about the father being older than the mother by far - a lot of times the men married much younger wives. For all we know he had a previous wife who died and he could have married again.
I also don't think it's weird that the father and the neighbour guy had a big difference in age, they shared a common love of who-done-it books and magazines. It's not like they were going out at nite picking up chicks or anything at bars...they both got along well and enjoyed shooting the breeze about killing each other. I think that's fun. :)
I loved it as well. I thought that was some of the best conversation going on in the film. They were fun. :)
12. Undoubtedly for a very smart woman she didn't exactly think - she did what a lot of people do...and panicked. Personally I would have laid on the car horn until someone came or looked around for an ax in the garage. You'd figure something would have been in there that could cave in that flimsy door. But I've also never been locked in a small enclosed space that is already chock full of carbon monoxide gas - maybe you lose consciousness very quickly.
13. That's how life works - you run and you're guilty. That's why cops still shoot criminals that are fleeing. If you have two criminals and one is fleeing and the other is hanging around in a nice neighbourhood with his family - which one are you going to think did the murdering?
14. There weren't cell phones back then and when you weren't at the place at the time, you didn't get in touch with them. This made for some really fun films where people were a phone call away from being helped - and killers always cut the phone wires so you couldn't call out. A whole lot of films have this going on.
15. Yes, the train went too fast right out of the station - but most people wouldn't jump off a speeding train. A lot of women can't get out of a man's grip...men generally overpower women with upper arm strength.
16. Considering it was a small town with only the one train coming in a day and leaving (or so it seemed as he was the only one getting off the train originally), "fleeing" isn't exactly the word I would use.
17. He was just caught up in the moment - a lot of these films have the murderer going a bit whackadoo at some point in pleasant conversation.
18. I thought he basically lost his footing and fell. It happens. Oh well.
4. That's how people tailed them back then - they followed. They didn't always have photos.
5. The guy had a head injury as a child and that changed the way he thought. He wasn't thinking rationally and being worried and paranoid is normal for anyone, especially one that is wanted for multiple murders.
6. To be honest...my now ex didn't even think of having my wedding ring engraved - and my engagement ring wasn't. Men typically didn't think of that sort of thing especially since he didn't buy it new. The jeweler usually would probably ask, "Do you want it engraved?" to the man. It's not that far-fetched to think he'd look as he was probably not giving women jewelry.
7. People would actually take their life savings from point A to point B and redistribute it in a bank. There would be no alarms sent out as the bank guy undoubtedly trusted this man as he was a relative of a long-time employee.
8. Yes...but this confrontation of a murderer happens all the time in films and it even happens all the time in real life still.
9. It was a great honour to have your home hand-picked by a government entity or wherever to do a story. It was like getting in the pages of LIFE magazine. Nowadays people have Nigerian scams they still believe in. They weren't really doing anything nefarious.
10. Bad news for the entire town to hear would have been a scandal. Having him at another place wouldn't have been that horrible - but seeing it with your own eyes back then would have been different in a way. Plus having him dragged off in front of her would have been traumatic for anyone.
11. People have been sabotaging all sorts of things then and still now. Did you ever watch any films with people getting pushed down stairs or the rugs on the stairs bunched up to create a fall?
continued again
I know this is years later but I just watched the film and a lot of people might still want to address these issues. Here is my take on it all. First off I must say that you do have valid points, but you are also looking at them through recent eyes. I don't know what your age is, but I'm nearly 60 and I had very old parents, my father who was born in 1914 and my mother in 1918 and I grew up hearing stories and I've watched enough films and read enough history to feel I can share some stuff.
1. Many people already addressed this - that he didn't marry them. He did ingratiate himself into their boarding houses, killed them, and ran off with their cash and jewelry. And, to be honest, my father who married my mother, other than the wedding photos (two photographs) was never photographed as he was the one behind the Polaroid. Also many people back then just didn't have cameras...they'd get them professionally done which was costly...and most times they only had a treasured couple photos. It would also been easy to take the marriage photograph and there would be no photos, period.
2. Uncle Charlie stated that he was at the end of his rope and basically wanted to off himself before he thought about going to live with his older sister. He really was contemplating suicide lying on the bed and really didn't give a damn about the money. He was more about killing the women and taking away what was left to them by their husbands...that is why he freely gave to the church guy and was why, I figured, they were throwing him a great party and letting him speak.
3. Back then people really didn't question other people's motives. For all we know he gave her a nice cover story and it was bought. A lot of people didn't trust the banks right after the depression, either. They'd stuff it in their mattresses and hide it all over the yard in coffee cans and whatnot. He might have said it was an inheritance, too.
Odd - it won't take all my comments - so I'll continue.
I absolutely love Joe Pesci in everything I've seen him in and probably wouldn't have watched this film had he not been in it (I'm not too gung-ho about mob films). He was outstanding. The entire film was and I'm glad that I decided to check it out after all. Usually I am reluctant to watch a Netflix film as I've been sorely disappointed one too many times. This time I wasn't. Not one bit.
The only issue I have with it - and it's not a big issue because I love Pacino, but I am old and I remember Hoffa. Pacino was hopping in and out of Hoffa's character and going full-on Pacino more than a few times. But, all in all I think he did a great job. I mean who can be disappointed in Al Pacino anyway?
WarriorPoet -- You summed up exactly what I tell everyone each time a time travel film happens. They still don't see it. It's truly frustrating as they don't get it. The only film I have no issue with (granted I've not seen all time travel films) is "Twelve Monkeys" -- it's brilliant, and in my opinion, is plausible. I've not seen the films you cite but I'm quite interested to see them now.
I just got done watching this film and it was such a feel good film for people who did indeed never gave up on themselves or on someone they had faith in. I was smiling from ear to ear at the great performances from the other actors and especially Da'Vine Joy Randolph who played Lady Reed. I was tearing up at the scene where Eddie goes to her door to take her to the premiere...her deliverance of those lines she says to him, well, just makes me not want to give up on myself as well.