MovieChat Forums > Dolemite > Replies
Dolemite's Replies
Not that she did not look nice dressed like that, but I did think that if the worse did come to the worst, you would not want to be found half undressed: bad form.
Lorrie. She seemed like a nice person who acted very bravely under the circumstances. Then she either burns and/or falls to her death. Bad sh*t happens to nice people.
Shnorky
Yes you could. My dad was in the army stationed at nearby Lark Hill in 1952 and you could then. They even saw some druids there once or twice.
Years later in the early seventies they used to have army days with displays nearby (Rushmore Arena) which we used to go to. Often we went to Stonehenge afterwards. From memory the road went right past it. There was a layby, with an AA telephone box, and you just went through a pedestrian, metal gate yo get to it. You could walk right up to it. There was just a watchman on duty to make sure nobody harmed them at all and a Ministry of Works Ancient Monument sign.
Well put. What he did to Margaret (the one whom he injects with a heroin overdose) I found particularly evil. The way that he kidnaps her and almost casually keeps her captive for what must have been an hour or more (she must have been terrified during that time), even stopping to make a phone call on the way to where he is going to murder her. Then he quite calmly and almost casually injects her with that drugs overdose as if he is just carrying out an everyday chore (to me certainly the act of a psychopath).
Any sympathy which I might have had for him evaporated after that.
I remember reading an obituary to the author of the novel, one weekend in the nineties. So when I saw it advertised on TV shortly afterwards I videoed and watched it.
Lots of things. There was a united humanity (pretty much) and sex and racial equality had been attained. So that humanity could concentrate on getting to the stars. With sex equality, I liked the way that the female crew members dressed. They looked very chic and feminine, and had just as important jobs as their male counterparts.
I did not feel that sorry for him. True, he had not exactly had a conventional upbringing, so he deserved sympathy for that. Then when he started to use his powers to harm people, part of you thought that although it was not right what he did, he was involuntarily lashing out. Then that woman, who was concerned about him, he changed into a lizard. You just saw him smirking. After that I thought what, a nasty, sadistic, little ****. So I was not sorry at all when he got taken away.
They are both good films in slightly different ways. I do have a lot more sympathy for the character of Harry Brown though. He was dealing with out and out bad guys so that the area where he lived would be safer for ordinary, law abiding people to live (as well as avenging his murdered friend).
Whereas with Jack Carter's character I found myself initially sympathising with him: he was avenging his law abiding brother's murder. However although I sympathised with him killing Eric (he was directly involved in the murder) and Peter the Dutchman (self defence), most of the other people whom he murders are only indirectly involved at worst. Albert Swift, whom he murders outside the bookies, Carter admits that he knows that he did not kill him. Also the long, drawn out way that he kidnaps Margaret and almost casually murders her, partly to drop Kinnear in it was when I lost any sympathy for him. To say nothing of the people in the car, when that bloke whom he chucks off the top of that building, lands on their car. They looked badly injured at best. He was pissed off that his illegitimate daughter/niece had gone into making that porno film. The firm which he worked for seemed to be involved in vice. He did not seem to be bothered that he was involved in the same kind of racket, which involved other people's nieces/daughters. So no, I ended up not liking him and thought that he got his just deserts.
Or the police in the story! Thanks for your reply.
In the novel he is saying that he loves Big Brother. The film, I think, leaves it open a bit more to interpretation. I would certainly like to think that he was talking about Julia. Someone whom I went to see the film with, when it was first released in 1984, said, "Good. He's beaten the b*stards. He's still in love with his girlfriend." at this final scene, without me saying anything. So it could be interpreted this way.
From what I remember from the novel, according to the book which O'Brien lent to Winston, they were pretty much the same.
I had it for Christmas! I am always a bit cautious about reading a sequel to a novel which I really like, especially if it is not the original author. However when I saw that it had been approved of by the Orwell Estate, I thought that I would give it a go. Personally I find it very good. You will have to make your own minds up though. Reading it at the moment, quite near to the end. POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS: The style of writing is similar to the original. It also complements the original very well, filling in the gaps in a way. One thing which always intrigued me in the latest film and the original book was how did the status quo arise in 1984? Part of me wants to know, but part of me likes the mystery. In this version a few more gaps are filled in, without giving much away. One thing which I found faintly amusing was a mother of the original revolution was describing to Julia how she and Rutherford went to battle in a Ford Anglia. Not that they were not an okay car, but not the sort of thing that you imagine the founders of a revolution driving!
Quite agree. Leonard got what he deserved. He took advantage of and murdered that one woman, who had shown him nothing but kindness. Then quite happily let his wife commit perjury, on his behalf, knowing that she would get a gaol sentence. Okay she does not deserve too much sympathy, knowing what he had done. Then he is very happy to inherit his murder victim's money and clear off with some amoral tart, whom he picked up in a pub. Serves him right.
I definitely hope that he gets caught!
In the mid to late 1970's I was at school with someone whose parents owned Ettington Park Manor. They lived in a modern bungalow at the end of the drive (since demolished). It did actually have some ghosts of its own, none as nasty as the ones in the film though.
I think that we all agree what happened to Nora was terrible, even Frieda seemed to feel dreadful about doing it. I can, reluctantly, see why they did it, so that Nora would not get hauled in for questioning and give something away. However, her disappearing just like that, when she had probably told people where she was going, would that not create suspicion?
Well said. Also he got the Kraken to destroy the city and mass murder everyone in there.
Exactly.
There have certainly been some after, Mel Gibson being one!