MovieChat Forums > agentalbert > Replies
agentalbert's Replies
The original is better all around in every regard. But there's no point in making a new version if EVERYTHING plays the same, so I didn't mind the ending in this. They still don't end up together. The movie was okay, but was tamed down in most regards and I didn't like it nearly as much as the Lina Wertmuller directed original, which is excellent. But this was better than I was lead to believe, and if I viewed it in a vacuum not having any knowledge of the original, I'd have liked it more.
Maybe the one thing this movie did better is that I don't remember a thing about anyone else on the boat (other than the two leads) from the original. In this one, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Elizabeth Banks make an impression, and Bruce Greenwood is good as always. So this did have that, but I'm not sure some focus on anyone other than the two leads really helps the movie. It's not like the original would have been better if we got to know the others more.
I didn't really like her look in this movie as she was too muscular. She still looked pretty, but she was getting into that super fit phase where you see her muscles and veins. I like her softer looking.
I can see the compassion angle, thought it could be both at the same time. Didn't she seem genuinely sad for him when she said "did you think I was falling in love with you"? And some of that was displacing/deflecting her own feelings which she fought against. She didn't fight the sex at all when he turned her over and did that. She let it happen, and he of course felt even worse when it was done. I think mostly she was showing him the difference between fake and real, and was being defiant. Both to him, and to her own feelings, though maybe not consciously so there.
I find Molly Parker very sexy, and loved that scene as well. I loved how the camera was close up on her face seeing her expression changes as she transforms. Ever since first seeing her in "Kissed", she's been one of my favorites. And I really appreciate that she's brave enough to take on some kinky roles.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240402/mediaviewer/rm622257921/
That was a funny scene, and it's cool she did it unexpectedly and got a little featured moment in the movie. Good for her!
I've always wanted to meet Anne Sanus.
So who does? I see Brenda Song and Billie Lourd in the cast. They'd be much more fun to look at anyway. But given the way current movies are, I'd probably just get a shot of Dave Bautista's ass.
I had to look up "neoteny". But I agree, and I think Anne Heche is very attractive in this. I don't normally like short haired women or women that slim, but Anne Heche has always had something very sexy about her. She was a beautiful woman.
And I think she's very good in her part in this.
I think story-wise part II is a bit better, but I find III more entertaining to watch.
She wasn't awful, but she wasn't really good either. No presence at all.
I'd probably rate her a little higher if she at least did her own nude scene instead of a body double. Which since we pointedly don't see her face, it's 99% for sure that's not her.
Dangerous Liasons best, Valmont next, Cruel Intentions sucks and is far down. I can see others swapping the first two. But they were legit movies made for adults, while this the equivalent of Twilight compared to real Vampire movies.
I'll take "bullshit made up stats for $100, Alex".
Yeah, that's what people said in the 70's after Deep Throat was such a big hit. Didn't happen.
But why shouldn't we? The point is that people are being spied on on their most intimate and private moments. With all the gruesome kills in this movie, it always strikes me how some people are so much more offended by some sex organs, or even just a pair of tits.
That was a fun, frisky come on line by Duke. I also liked it when he said "keep the matches, lady. You're about as cold as a cry for help."
<blockquote>I can't imagine why he would go for her in the first place. There was nothing appealing about her.</blockquote>
Only woman in the bar. Or at least that's what it looked like at the time. Not sure when that other group of ladies entered or why he didn't see them to start. But she wasn't that bad looking, just not dressed in any attractive way or with an appealing personality.
I thought his lines and come-on's were funny too.
Yeah, that's as good an answer as any. I love the movie and it doesn't lessen my enjoyment, but he does take some strange actions that don't really seem consistent. Like the scene with the gas station worker who he makes flip for his life. You'd think someone in Chigurh's line of work would find it important NOT to draw extra attention to himself, but that whole conversation and then leaving the guy doesn't seem smart. He does show a practical sense later when trying to get information from the woman at the trailer park office. It seems he's about to kill her to get what he wants, but then changes course and leaves when he hears a noise indicating there is someone else there.
Back to the killing of the two guys I asked about - this is probably what caused the organization to send Woody Harrelson's character in the first place. It was likely those killings that made them realize they had a loose cannon out there on the trail.
I remember that conversation, but I never felt like they were the equivalent of him the way Woody Harrelson's character was. They didn't seem to be at all what he was, as far as job skills. Just part of the organization that hired him.
Say Chigurh goes on to promptly retrieve the money to then return to the organization. How does he justify to them that he killed those guys, who seemed to be just liaisons taking him to the scene where he would begin tracking from?
The other line that always makes me laugh is the Steve Jobs jab:
<i>Take back your outrageous fortune and the apple in young Steve's eye</i>
Not sure if that one came from Tom or Bob, but clearly somebody wasn't stoked about the advent of the personal computer.
My favorite line in this was when the inspector says to the ambassador, "The use of vitriol suggests the hands of a woman...or a colored person". Ha! Gotta love 70's dialog!
Though I didn't realize at first that they're using "vitriol" as a synonym for acid, or it's a kind of acid. I thought they just meant as in vitriolic, or with malice.
The info (in the commentary) about the Swastika Laundry was interesting as well.
I can't really disagree with anything you say here. The movie is confusing and some of the effects work is so poor as to really be distracting. You can get away with things like that in a good movie like Don't Torture A Duckling. But the ridiculous bald cap you see in the final sequence is so bad it's just laughable. I think the character I liked most was the ambassador's wife played by Valentina Cortese. She was fun, especially in the scene where she's flirting with Luigi Pistilli's character. I wish there were more of her.
When it ended, I wasn't sure how it was that the detective knew that it was the <spoiler>ambassador who killed the first two women. Why wasn't this the step-son? Wasn't his motive to torment his hated stepfather the ambassador?</spoiler>
All these years later there are characters that are still not credited at all. Who plays Norton's daughter? Who plays the woman (in the unconvincing wig) that is murdered in the opening scene?