MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
No, it doesn't.
Something in a womb is not yet a BABY, it's a FETUS.
for the line to make sense and to be truthful, they couldn't have done it that way - they would HAVE to have been born first.
Try again.
"If the dome isn't made of pixels or whatever"
Um, pixels do not exist in the real world. You can't have a dome made of pixels. You can have a screen that's dome-shaped, you can have millions of LEDs (which would not be bright enough to mimic sun, moon or even stars believably, but then again, why would Truman need to know about any of these, they could just switch on and off some bright lamp in the middle of the dome, Truman doesn't know any better, how would he know it's not realistiC?)..
..but you can't make things out of pixels in the real world, because pixels DO NOT EXIST in the real world, they are NOT a substance, they are NOT a material, they are literally NOTHING.
They can only exist as 'unreal projections by display devices', that's all. They absolutely need a display device to be seen, otherwise they exist as DATA ONLY inside computers and processors (and GPUs and..)
So, please learn logic before writing posts about movies - it's hard to trust someone's logic that doesn't even understand what pixels are, and then brushes this off by offering us the intelligent explanation of "whatever".
Nothing can be built of 'whatever', as it's just an abstract mental construct, a pointer to absolutely nothing.
You couldn't bring yourself to mention LED lights or flexible display devices or anything? Really?
"..could give a *beep* less"
Could you please stop butchering the english language.
Is it not bad enough that 'couldn't care less' has mutated into 'couldn't give a shht', but now it's 'could give a shht'?
Think; which is correct? a) "Couldn't care less" or b) "Could care less"?
Replacing 'less' with another word just doesn't work, because this this particular phrase has a very specific meaning.
It means 'I care SO little, I could not care any less'. It means the caring is literally 'at the lowest pont it can be'.
If you go on changing not only the word 'less' to something else, but also changing the structure, you destroy all of the original meaning it was supposed to have. You might as well just say 'doesn't give a shht' - that would be less subtle, but at least it would make some kind of sense.
'Could care less' makes no sense, because it means you care SO MUCH that you could still lower your caring to be less. See how wrong it is?
'Could give a shht less' is like the mutations in 'The Fly' and 'The Fly II'; what the hell is that monstrosity?!
PLEASE don't write something like that again, I am more traumatized by your attempt to infuse two completely incompatible things while butchering BOTH than seeing any of the monsters in 'The Fly' and 'The Fly II' combined. I wonder when I can stop vomiting.
Watching the Truman Show in this movie's world, would be like watching 'Empty Nest' every day. No one can do that, it's one of the, if not the most boring TV show I have ever tried to watch.
I absolutely adore and LOVE Richard Mulligan, but that show is just ridiculously boring and repetitive, if not predictable. I could never go through another episode of that.. it's just so awfully bland and boring.
I guess some people would want to watch something like that, but I bet most people wouldn't - they would have to spice it up somehow, and this is even seen in the movie, they often 'dramatize' things and orchestrate dramatic music to certain places - this means they would probably dramatize it further with all kinds of things to make it interesting.
That kind of 'regular dude''s life is just not interesting to watch without some kind of dramatization. Just watch what they do with his 'dad reunion' stuff; the stuff of the most watched soaps. No way that's the only case where they'd do that, if this was real.
This is why 'reality TV' can never be truly real - no one trusts that real stuff would be interesting or entertaining enough, so they try to always 'spice' it as much as they can. The Dog Whisperer and Supernanny are probably the only two 'relatively truthful' shows, because you can't direct dogs and toddlers and kids all that effectively for the most part. It'd be impossible to find this many good 'kid actors' and 'dog actors', they're way too authentic. Plus, Cesar's wounds are way too real, there's no way that's just make-up and special effects.
Just as an example; if anyone watched MY life for two episodes worth, they would fall into a coma out of sheer boredom.
I have to agree. If the plot contrivances hadn't happened, and everyone being so stupid, this would just be a boring show about someone's really repetitive, routine-filled, unimaginative life. He doesn't even do anything creative, no pixel art, animations, music, painting, synthesizer madness.. anything.
He just goes to work and lives with his advertising wife he doesn't even like and talks to the mirror. That's about it.
After you've seen it a couple of times, you probably wouldn't bother watching much more of it.
So they can block Truman with traffic in SECONDS, but they can't simply STOP doing the same loop over and over again, after Truman has figured it out, and just sits in his car _WAITING_ for the loop to happen. The bicycle and car and everything just keep looping, as if no one had any idea that Truman is watching and realizing things keep looping.
This movie is SO inconsistent with these plot contrivances. On one hand, we're shown how masterfully, competently, swiftly and amazingly they can react to everything Truman does, how they can guide and block him at will and all that, but on the other hand, they use a 'localized rain' (WHY WOULD THIS EVEN BE A THING? Who thought to install 'localized rain' ability to the system? Why not only have a 'full rain' option and nothing so stupid as 'localized rain'? MAKES NO SENSEEEEE!!), they are completely unable to stop Truman from seeing all kinds of things like the Sirius lamp (these are ALWAYS connected at least with two completely separate systems, so they CAN NEVER FALL - at least in real life. so why would this trillon-dollar project not follow this convention? Because the movie needs to happen! It's so stupid)..
The ads are, OF COURSE, suspicious to Truman, even if he has lived with this kind of behaviour all his life. The ads -absolutely- do not need to happen this way, they can just be shown to the viewers with audio coming from the studio, so the actors NEVER have to actually advertise anything so blatantly and overtly. It's enough that they drink Cuke and make sure the logo is facing some camera, and nothing else.
There doesn't need to be a bus, a road leading off the island (except some secret one Truman doesn't have access to, behind some big parking hall or whatnot), a friggin' TRAVEL AGENCY or boats.
Instead of just NOT INSTALLING a travel agency, they actually think just putting a poster with a lightning going through a wing of an AIRPLANE (that Truman ALSO needs to not know about) will do the trick..
..Dan's character would ABSOLUTELY have ended up as a homeless bum with no future (so to speak).
Dan was brought down and then lifted up, his genetics weren't involved at all, things just happened to and for him, instead of him taking control over his life. Only when he was brought back to a position of power, could he function again, could he have agency again, and then TOGETHER WITH OTHERS, he was able to become rich.
By himself, he'd been doomed.
Eddie's character was already in a 'doomed' position, but he had some fight in him, he wasn't giving up, he was smiling and had a great disposition about everything, he would have had -some- opportunity to climb up for sure.
Had they chosen someone that's truly in the drug-addict world of despair and misery, preferably with bad teeth, the bet would've ended up with 'genetics impact people more than environment'.
Of course, in reality, -= EVERYTHING =- is a factor, and no single thing ever dictates things fully. Bad environment can bring and keep some people down, while others can still climb up from that. Bad genetics might do the same, but if environment changes, they might either get up and stay up, or go back down and stay down.
The same exact circumstances can depress one man and inspire another, as was the case of some brothers, who gave the same answer to the question of 'why are you in the position you are in now' - their strict father. That strictness depressed and immobilized one brother and drove him to alcoholism, it inspired and created an urge to show him in the other brother, so the other became a bum, the other a wealthy man.
So environment doesn't dictate everything, genetics doesn't dictate everything, but instead, there are so many factors that dictate what and where you will be and how you think. Also, think about enlightened Zen masters; they live in poverty in some mud hut, but they're happier than the richest people on the planet. How would you rate that for genetics/environment?
I mean, Eddie's character is an EXCEPTIONAL individual, and the environment, in this case, WAS the only thing keeping him down. The most intelligent 'scientist' would be just as unable to rise to any kind of social or societal rank if they were put to his body and his position; heck, they might even be doing worse, because they're not as street-smart, or have as charming a personality.
So this movie and what happens, proves absolutely NOTHING about environment or genetics whatsoever.
If they had chosen a dumb-witted drug-addict that isn't cracking jokes all over the place and who doesn't have that Eddie Murphy-laugh to charm everyone's socks off, I would say they would have simply squandered all the fortunes and not cared if someone vomits in their house's floor. We have a real case study in what 'Rahat' tried to do for a homeless guy (Eric, I think), and this backfired drastically, Eric actually managed to bring Rahat down instead of Rahat bringing Eric up; Rahat had to go through therapy and burnout, his reputation was ruined, and so on, and Eric simply squandered every penny instead of using the opportunity to build himself up.
This would ABSOLUTELY have happened with Eddie's character, too, if he hadn't been an EXCEPTIONAL, already intelligent individual with street smarts, amazing intuition and all kinds of dazzling qualities. He was the wrong subject to choose.
Dan's character was actually a bit more slow-witted, as he had lived a complacent life where he didn't have to really challenge anything or struggle with anything, so he wasn't prepared for the tough street life, he absolutely has no street smarts, and would've 'offed' himself, if the circumstances hadn't prevented it.
Turns out you CAN bring someone down by simply changing their circumstances, and they can't bring themselves back up - I doubt ANY genetics would've helped Dan's character in his plight, and if it hadn't been for the stupid cliché of 'hooker with golden heart' (groan)...
'Real scientific evidence'... fancy weasel words there.
There's more to intelligence than measurable quotients. There are also people, whose IQ is never truly measured.
Also, your 'evidence' may point towards that kind of conclusion, but I would challenge that it's actual proof of anything.
Real intelligence can come from many sources, and superb intelligence can be also hindered and suppressed by very many factors indeed. This is why there can NEVER be a true answer to this kind of question. For example, what dictates genetics?
What I am driving at, is if we take properly scientific realities into the mix, that this planet's clumsy and materialistic 'science' refuses to even acknowledge, things become more interesting and less rigid. Intelligence does not come from genes, because it's not a quality of the body.
This false premise that your 'REAL scientific evidence' (as opposed to what? UNREAL scientific evidence?? Did you have to add that word, wouldn't 'scientific evidence' be enough? It's very revealing that you did that) is based on, of course falsifies the results, and renders your conclusions, no matter how blindly you believe in this cult called 'science', null and useless.
Intelligence is a property of the soul, not the property of the body. Intelligent soul can be born to a genetically limiting body, so their ingelligence can't be accessed fully, and thus it APPEARS they are stupid, even though they themselves ARE actually very intelligent, they just don't have ACCESS to all of their intelligence due to the limitations and blocks that the body imposes during that incarnation.
This fact ALONE renders everything you claimed completely wrong and false.
Also, the first claim is ALSO wrong; the Dukes simply chose the WRONG candidate for their experiment.
Eddie's character is very intelligent, very resourceful, energetic, social, quick thinker, street-smart, and on and on. This is not your everyday, normal 'low-life thug from the ghettos'.
In the end, this moral dilemma becomes something like.. "How much is enough?"
If you give 500 dollars to some kid that hasn't eaten well in years, you might feel good. But should you then feed that kid forever? What about his/her family?
Should you go to a poor country and give a million dollars to some village?
What happens when they run out of the money?
Should you just randomly distribute packs of ten thousand bucks to different poor people or groups of people? What would satisfy the guilt? Would you EVER feel like you have given enough?
Where is the point, after which you can say 'Right, I have given enough, now I can just selfishly enjoy my monty'?
I would be so bad with money like that, even if I hired someone, I would definitely overpay them out of sheer guilt, and I couldn't just keep paying them a 'modest salary'. I would run out of the money so quickly because of that. Everyone I hire would probably get ten times more than they would usually get, especally some kind of butler or cook.
Even then I would feel guilty. And they would quit, because they would have so much money, they could invest in stocks and become richer than I am. This problem alone is a weird feature of this world; someone rich can't pay someone handsomely, or they will stop working, because they don't need to anymore.
Then again, people should work for the joy of work, because they want to do that work, not because the world makes it so they HAVE to work - I would HATE to support that kind of system.
This is somewhat shown in the movie, where the former butler is suddenly the master, and bosses around other people, and feels important due to it. There's something just so wrong about this. Shouldn't he UNDERSTAND what it feels like and have more compassion towards the people he now bosses around like some psycho?
I can't see a problem-free way to be rich, so I am glad I don't have that kind of wealth.
"Poverty is your treasure. Never exchange it for an easy life."-Koan
According to the studies, Lotto winners get something between three months and three years of 'happiness', then their feelings go to 'normal'. They won't be AN IOTA happier than they were before the win.
I guess part of it is because a Lotto win makes you focus solely on the money and what you can do with it, so you want to exploit all the possibilities. But after you have bought your fourth house in the Bahamas, and pay off your second private Jet, have visited Thailand eighteen times for .. pleasurable exoticism, it all starts to feel boring and samey. How many times can you just buy something shiny and expect to feel excited about it? How many times can you land in a faraway place and feel excited about it? Eventually it all becomes boring, no matter how 'luxurious' your lifestyle may be.
This sounds pretty horrible, I guess, but when you consider the old Zen koans, perhaps people are happier, maybe not dirt poor and struggling, but at least 'not very rich', because that allows them to be focused on OTHER things than money.
'Free from money' is a better place to be than 'Chained by masses of money', wouldn't you say? If you are rich enough that you don't have to think about money, but poor enough that your whole focus isn't only on the money and what it gives you, then you might be the happiest.
I'd like to think that if I ever got huge amount of money and wealth, I would ONLY use it as 'key to options', and not obsess over it or whatever. I would simply expand my life and its options to the max., and leave it at that, and then just try to live as good a life within that framework as possible. It could be fun to just be able to do 'anything I want at any point', and just for humor, it could be giggly to just take a taxi cab to some destination that's 1000 kilometers away, just to buy an ice cream, and head back.
Of course there would be the guilt - how can I enjoy myself and luxuries, when people don't even have food. So it'd always be a pain.
Maybe give people a Video Game Arcade that anyone can come to play either for free or very cheaply, and furnish it fully with all the best, old coin-up games from Pac-Man to Truxton / Tatsujin and the weird, cute fighters, like '(Super?) Pocket Fighters' and such.
That kind of 'structural' community care could be the way to go, even if it wouldn't benefit everyone in the world.
The best thing would be to bring the whole corrupted system down so a new, just system could be built on the ruins, but the problem with that is the REASON why things are so bad in this world; people. Hell is other people, so you'd have to basically replace the demonic, selfish and toxic population of this planet with actual good people, ACTUAL humans that care about others.
In any case, it's impossible to build something good on a corrupt base. It's like building that's built on top of a swamp or quicksand, or a bad base that keeps breaking down.. eventually the whole thing is just going to come crashing down.
Money is a chain for the soul, because it makes you turn towards selfishness and greed more often than not. It even happened to Valve (Act Man's video makes it clear), how easily can it happen to an individual? Look at almost ANYone that became rich, especially 'filty rich' - how many true philantrophists do you see? Even 'Pewdiepie' (Felix) didn't donate half of his money immediately to the poor and needy. He did some charity and giveaways, but often it was 'raised money', not his own wallet dollars and pounds. He still kept collecting more to fulfill his selfish dream of living in Japan.
We have to realize that being rich doesn't bring you happiness, we have to learn how to find value and joy in poverty, and to see money as a wage slave chain as well as other things.
This means we don't ALWAYS have to pity the poor, or slam the rich for not giving to the poor - someone poor can actually be happier as 'poor' (relatively speaking anyway) than super rich.
What if giving too much money and wealth away makes themselves poor again? What if the poor just buy booze with the money?
Giving money seems easy on the surface, but as the world is a horror show anyway, if at least a couple of people can live comfortably, it's better than no one. How do you give money wisely?
If you give 100 bucks to a homeless man, chances are, they will just buy booze and drugs and tomorrow they're penniless again. It doesn't matter how much money you poor to that bottomless hole, you might end up like 'Rahat', who gave money to a drug addict, who squandered the money, slandered him, made up lies and even ragged on the _HOUSE_ Rahat gave him, and demamded to get all the donations he got, and just rode limousines and tried to impress his drug-addicted friends with the limousines and lavish lifestyle, until all the money was gone.
He dragged Rahat's reputation to the mud, everyone hated him for awhile, until the truth started to come out with proof, and I guess now he's doing fine again.
So how do you give wisely, if you can't know what the other individual is going to do with that money? What if they will finance a criminal gang or something like that? What if they will help kids become addicted to drugs? They might buy a gun and shoot people. They .. well, you get the idea.
What charity is ethical and clean of corruption? Surely not the 'colored cross', right?
You'd have to research quite a lot to find a charity worth giving to, and even then, you'd have to make the ethical, almost 'godlike' choice and judgment; THESE people are the worthiest people on the planet, screw everyone else!
You can't give to every charity, or the amount you CAN give to each will be minuscule, so why even bother?
There could be a 'community' you know, so perhaps the best thing would be to not just give money, but actually help improve some structures, like change STROADS into STREETS (watch 'NotJustBikes' videos, if you don't understand), build Shelters..
There are many points made here, that are confusing what's being said.
The OP does have a bit of a good point going on, but then there are the ad hominem-cretins that think 'STFU' is a good argument, or just calling someone too stupid to breathe (without explaining why they think that) is worthy of being posted. What times we live in.
I'd like to open this discussion a bit, because this world is HORRIBLE when it comes to 'wealth' and 'resources' and human needs being met, but it's also a very interesting topic when it comes to what a movie is, what movies show, what kind of message a movie sends, and so on.
On one hand, it's understandable they'd want a bit of luxury and vacation after all that trouble, and revenge after being bamboozled so much their lives were turned upside down by these evil man. Maybe our 'beloved main characters' even learned something.
They don't show they're better than Dukes by helping them out, though, they don't show compassion or caring about someone that just had a heart attack. They don't show genuine worry for people's lives or livelihoods.
They don't even know how many people's lives they just ruined by their stock market trick, how many people committed a suicide because of their actions, how many people lost their jobs,incomes, how many families suffered and so on. They just cared about getting rich, and that's it.
This message is pretty bad, it does perpetuate the myth that money can make you happy and it's OK to be a selfish, uncaring prick and just hoard gains for yourself and your friends, the heck with anyone else.
However, we are not shown what happens - they each become rich, but we are not given information as to WHAT they're going to do with their money. Everyone that suddenly becomes rich, faces the same dilemma; should they practice some kind of charity, or just be selfish about it. Should they give money to the poor, and how much would be enough? What if it becomes an endless drain?
"PETA doesn't think King Kong should not have been killed in the end of that movie. "
Why not? King Kong was fictional though, so NOTHING was killed.
Just to nitpick your title a bit - 'second person' makes no sense. I know you are taking the 'I am the only one', and then editing it as if there are only two people, but it makes NO sense the way you wrote it. Second means something that comes after 'first', not something you can use to add another unit to 'only'.
Also, you are not a person, because person is just legal fiction, but I am convinced this goes beyond the capacity of understanding you were endowed with.
The correct way to say this, of course, would've been something like: "Am I one of the only two people that hated this movie", or something.
Yes, I think it'd be better to use the word 'hate' than 'dislike' or 'didn't like'. It's more direct and honest language. 'Didn't like' leaves the 'completely neutral' option open. But if you are gonna hate something, hate it openly and honestly, damnit, just like I hate your post and ignorance and all the frustration I had to endure because of both.
Someone doing THAT clearly isn't competent enough to write valid criticism of anything.
I am STILL waiting for even one valid critical point about this movie. Just because you don't laugh or understand anything that's going on, just because you write 'story doesn't make sense' doesn't let you off the hook and become good criticism.
The story is a bit convoluted, but as it's shown, it makes perfect sense. It doesn't have to be realistic for it to make sense, it doesn't have to conform to some pre-conceived standard for it to make sense. Everything happens pretty logically and even predictably, the consequences are shown pretty logically, even if some things are a bit implausible. As a movie, this story makes good sense to me.
Why wouldn't it?
A good criticism or discussion isn't just "doesn't make sense" or "yes it does", or we could just create a program to write those two opposite opinions forever, and we'd have the best debate in the world.
Tell me _WHY_. Just explain. What about it, why do you think so, how did you come to this conclusion, and so on. Then we can have a discussion, then I can respect your post as having proper criticism.
All it consists of now is listing what happens in the movie, lying about what happens, misunderstanding what happens, and making flat claims that have no backing up.
SURELY anyone should be able to do better than that. Surely..
If anything doesn't make sense, is that someone can write so much and explain so little, YOUR post makes much less sense than any movie I have ever seen.
Just write ONE good point - or even _A_ point. Just write ONE valid criticism, just ONE valid explanation about WHY something doesn't make sense. Then we can talk. Otherwise, just please delete your trashpost, because it's embarrassing. If I were you, I would be hiding under the stairs and punching myself in the face for writing something not only ignorant, lacking of coherence, but also insultingly nonsensical and utterly worthless.
"This was a B-level movie! I didn't even laugh for a second. The story doesn't make sense either. "
You must be the same poster you supposedly 'quoted', because you didn't add -anything- valid or valuable to the garbage post, and you seem to think it was a good idea to quite something that crappy, which makes me question your intelligence and character.
What the heck is a 'B-level movie'? Do you mean this movie is (in some way) on par with B-movies?
The 'B' doesn't stand for some kind of LEVEL rank, it's just a very specific movie group that this movie definitely does not belong to, and just because you don't like or understand a movie, isn't what dictates whether a movie is a B-movie or not.
Let me educate you:
"A B-movie or B-film is a low-budget commercial motion picture. In its original usage, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the term more precisely identified films intended for distribution as the less-publicized bottom half of a double feature (akin to B-sides for recorded music)."
This movie is not that funny, I agree about that part. It's probably not meant to be a 'laugh-out-loud'-type comedy, it's just a silly, wacky movie that underlines some problems of capitalism and this world, and then succumbs to the typical hollyweird clichés, predictable plot patterns and confusing conclusion that feels a bit weird, even if it slightly satisfying. However, this is not a valid criticism towards this movie - I didn't laugh that many times watching 'The Matrix', so it's a B-movie now? Come on, you should be able to do better than that.
So, the story doesn't make sense - it's easy to just say this and leave it at that, but it's still not a valid criticism.
What about it doesn't make sense? Why do you think it doesn't make sense? What would have to change for it to make sense? What kind of stories make sense to you?
See, how you neglected to answer any of these questions, you just slam a movie without explaining anything, then quote yourself..?
""Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Aykroyd have chemistry because...reasons?""
You also haven't earned the right to use the word 'reasons', because you have not given even one valid reason for writing any of the garbage you vomited through your keyboard.
Usually when people word things that way, it's because they reveal something completely illogical and implausible, that should make the reader think about it, and then add that word to underline how that could and should never logically happen.
Whether some actors have 'chemistry' is NOT a valid way to use that kind of wording, for crying out loud.
"Aykroyd's lines all feel flat and delivered off a piece of paper. Same with the Duke brothers, who seem to yell at random times and otherwise act like cardboard."
This is your opinion, and your opinion alone. Dan may not be the best actor in the world, but he is definitely BELIEVABLE here. There are other movies and other actors that would fit your unimaginative description. Of course they used pieces of paper, that's called a SCRIPT, you know. (Or perhaps you DON'T know, based on your garbage post)
Cardboard can't act. Usually when people use cardboard as a metaphor, they're not talking about acting.
These are rich people - how many rich people do you talk with daily? They're supposed to be reserved and pompous, and these actors definitely pull off the 'rich, pompous' type perfectly. Of course they yell because the situation REQUIRES them to.
They react to everything perfectly, exactly as an excellent actor would.
It seems your lack of understanding knows no bounds; you not only do not understand anything that happens in this movie, you don't even understand the difference between good and bad acting, you don't know how to use metaphors correctly, or choose the right metaphors (you can call something 'wooden acting', but not 'cardboard acting', for crying out loud!), you can't find VALID points to criticize that genuinely do not make sense.. you fail hard.
"Dan Aykroyd just totally loses it in what feels like two days. It just doesn't fit quite right to me."
It's not Dan that loses anything, it's the character. Try to at least understand the difference between movie and reality, sheesh.
So what if he 'totally loses it' (do you mean his possessions, or are you using an idiom here, it's not clear - not that any of your writing is, but maybe you can at least learn) in two days? Wouldn't you?
You think things happen too fast - that's fine. That's just your opinion, though, that you don't back up other than saying 'it just doesn't fit quite right' - whatever this means. Why use such weird language, when you can just say 'You don't like it', which is ALL you seem to mean anyway.
You don't like this movie, because things happen in this movie that you don't like, and you THINK things are strange and 'plot holes', because you don't actually UNDERSTAND what's actually happening in the movie, or realize why things happen the way they do, ALTHOUGH they are very well explained in the movie.
I thought you were going to say something about implausible clichés this movie is built around, the predictable, boring structure, or the unrealistically angelic personality of Eddie's character. Instead, you go off about nitpicks at best, and just listing what happens in the movie without explaining why it would be wrong, it all amounting just to: "You didn't like the movie because you didn't like the movie".
How profound.
"Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Aykroyd have chemistry because...reasons?"
I don't even know what to say about this. Are you talking about the actors or the characters? They don't have 'chemistry' (whatever this stupid cliché means anyway), they are just actors doing their job in a movie. What are you even talking about? The hooker's motivations are clearly explained, Dan's character is just desperate, so his actions are completely understandable. What's 'chemistry' about it?
Also, why shouldn't they have it?