MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
To me it's an example of Renault's sense of humor, making a proud point of his decadence by hinting that he's likely to do anything if it suits him. But that's just a feeling, based on just how utterly jaded he likes to present himself as being, without any shame or embarrassment.
He could have been gay, but there's no real evidence of that. I've noticed that many younger people coming to the movie today want to see or find a gay relationship between Neil & Todd. But while that's a possibility, again, nothing in the movie indicates that. What many of those younger people have difficulty understanding is just how powerful & strong a bond between boys—or indeed between grown men—can be, without necessarily being sexual.
Neil was outwardly confident, smart, popular, a true golden boy ... everything that Todd felt that he himself wasn't. Yet both were under tremendous parental & social pressure. Perhaps Neil recognized just how lost Todd felt & wanted to help him—and perhaps in a way help himself as well?—while Todd saw someone who was far more of an understanding & supportive older brother than his own never-seen brother could ever be. Remember Nolan's first words to Todd? "You've got some big shoes to fill, young man. Your brother was one of our best." Neil could easily see that Todd was as outwardly crushed & defeated as Neil felt inwardly, with the only difference being that Neil had learned to cover it up, while Todd was quite painfully open about it. Kindred spirits like that can form a strong bond, often without being able to articulate why, or even feeling a need to do so.
Couldn't agree more, Brux. We lived through it, after all.
Even in the strictest days of movie censorship, good filmmakers & scriptwriters knew how push the envelope just enough to get their point across without being called on it. And they also knew how to suggest just enough for the adults to understand, while it flew over the heads of the kids in the audience. Recall the scene in <i>Lawrence of Arabia</i> where Lawrence is captured & the soldiers tear away his upper clothes, revealing his bare chest, and the Turkish commander lasciviously licks his lips before the flogging with the cane begins. There's even lingering closeup of his tongue over his lips. Adults in the audience knew that there was a lot more involved there than just the flogging.
They're not interested in <b>bad</b> Robin Hood or King Arthur movies.
The animated film is better & far more faithful to Tolkien. Jackson's trilogy buries the simple & quite enjoyably exciting story of Bilbo under bloated fanfic.
I agree with the OP. And I'd add that love & intimacy between two me doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, but it can still be powerful. It's a topic a lot of men are deeply uncomfortable about, however.
What you call "faddish 1960s interests in Eastern beliefs" was a very big part of a spiritually seeking world growing up in the wake of WWII, the Holocaust & and the daily threat of nuclear war. It may seem silly to you from the perspective of 2022 ... but many things that seem extremely important to today's world may seem just as silly to another generation some 50-60 years down the line from today. Smoking pot & using LSD were actually serious ways of expanding consciousness in those days, although I'll grant you that as they became widespread, more people were simply interested in getting high rather than exploring the depths of the psyche. Remember, judge not lest ye be judged ...
If you enjoy quiet films where "nothing happens"—but in fact a whole lot does happen inside of the characters—then it might well appeal to you. It has a light touch & charm that makes it work all the better than an overly dramatic or obviously comic film. For me, it's one of those films that ever so subtly draws you in & doesn't ask anything more of the viewer than to be lived in & enjoyed. Yet if you think about it afterwards, it'll feel deeper than you originally thought while watching it—not "deeper" in a mind-blowing or portentous way, but deeper in feeling that stays with you. Or so it worked for me, anyway. Plus, an absolutely lovely, evocative score by Mark Knopfler.
One more classic that doesn't need to be remade. Whatever they come up with will be yesterday's news soon enough, while the original will continue to be a timeless classic.
Well said!
That's an entirely reasonable view & I like it.
Well, I disagree with him. They were going for a more cerebral, non-Star Wars film, and they mostly succeeded. It's not a perfect Star Trek movie by any means, but it's a lot better than popular opinion would have it, I think.
You're taking it far too literally. The film is more of a parable, with the outward aspects depicting the inward changes of the characters. It's meant to be experienced & felt in the heart. Anything else in the so-called "real world" is superfluous.
Truley timeless stories about the human condition, as relevant today as they were 60 years ago.
Holds up very well for me. It's not meant to be a hard science-fiction film, but a darkly satiric & semi-allegorical film, utilizing science-fiction as a frame for what it wants to say about humanity. And that part of it is still quite applicable today ... perhaps even more so.
I agree with you. An underrated, poignant film, and certainly worthy of Star Trek.
Quite all right. I rather liked it, but tastes vary & nothing wrong with that.
My pleasure! I will never understand why some people believe they should take a quality story & "improve" it by changing it completely to suit their own preferences. Yet it happens all the time.
And all the better for being so, too.