MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
2) Snoopy is shown to have a magnificent, powerful, effective IMAGINATION.
He is OFTEN shown to exaggerate the experiences he has in all sort of manners. He, for example, is shown to fight a 'Red Baron' with his doghouse as an airplane, and there are extended scenes in other Peanuts specials and movies depicting these fights, as if they are literal - bullets fly, airplanes roar, there are crashes, explosions and whatnot.
In the end, however, you find Snoopy just walking along next to his ordinary doghouse.
Are you saying Snoopy's doghouse ACTUALLY flies and he ACTUALLY was shooting at a 'Red Baron', and also getting shot, and could've died from that?
Probably not, right? It was JUST AN IMAGINED SCENE to exaggerate and also wonderfully show to us that Snoopy just has an over-active imagination, and in his imagined scenes, 'anything can happen' that wouldn't really, normally happen.
As a sidenote, I wish Woodstock was flying more in this one, he seems to be walking and running around a lot, whereas in the comic, he flies in very odd and random-looking patterns, like a butterfly. That is way funnier than making him just walk on the ground.
I agree with the shocking cannibalism bit, and Snoopy being a jerk for holding out - plus, if ALL of the kids together can't get a murdered innocent animal's carcass, whose dead, bloody muscles and flesh to consume, how does a dang DOG acquire such a coveted item?
However, there are a few points I want to make about your post.
" Who the hell keeps an alive lawn chair with obvious attack tendencies in their garage?!? Someone could have been seriously injured"
That's "Who the hell keeps a living lawn chair", not "an alive lawn chair". English, do you SPEAK IT?! (just kidding, but come on, this is basic)
The other point about this is, that it's _OBVIOUSLY_ symbolic. It's not to be taken literally. Of course a lawn chair isn't and can't be alive, but there are two things to consider:
1) It EXPRESSES with this easy-to-understand "FIGHT-SYMBOLISM" how difficult and painful those things can be to handle, open and close, and how people _HAVE_ been injured trying to do these things. Lawn chairs are notoriously annoying, stressful and cumbersome, complicated and a REAL STRUGGLE to handle, operate, open, close and sometimes they close on you when you're sitting on them and so on.
It PERFECTLY symbolizes the difficult of lawn chair operations; many people DO FEEL like this scene accurately depicts - not the actual, physical event of opening a law chair in a realistic way - but the FEELING, EMOTION, EXPERIENCE and STRUGGLE, which can be described to be a REAL FIGHT to get it done.
It's not to be taken LITERALLY, it's artistic freedom as to how the 'struggle to open a lawn chair' is depicted. It could be done with interplanetary teleporters and twelve-dimensional tootbrushes that look nothing like anything people have ever seen, and it would still be just as descriptive and realistic, because it's supposed to be a figurative, symbolic, imaginary scene, exaggerating the struggle to underline it.
She's an angry dyke, what do you expect?
None of this have anything to do with this 1973 special, try to find some appropriate place to discuss OTHER things.
This movie board is about the 1973-made "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving", and it certainly doesn't feature any adults or a 'pilgrim cartoon'.
Pilgrim is also not a name, so you don't capitalize it.
"This was actually made in 1988 "
How could something that was made in 1973, have suddenly been made in 1988?
If you look up there, you see: "MovieChat Forums > A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving (1973) Discussion"
What kind of time-travel logic would explain that??
Why can't Charlie Brown write with an ink pen?
After watching a few episodes of 'What's My Line', you'll really appreciate the parody.
This is the problem with movie discussion boards, like this one.
People COULD talk about great ideas, amazing philosophical concepts, multi-layered thoughts that expand beyond time, space and physical realms..
..but instead, we get 'how did they meet' and 'she is so hot'. Sigh.
As they say, great minds talk about ideas, mediocre minds talk about events, small minds talk about people. There are nothing but small minds here.
In other words, WHO THE HECK CARES ABOUT MUNDANE TRIVIA AND MINUTIAE LIKE THAT?! SHEESH!!
"The thugs had at least one revolver, but after a few shots all those dogs, the horse, and the cat would have overwhelmed them"
No. Animals are AFRAID of loud sounds like that, and you obviously don't realize just _HOW_ loud guns are. They're ridiculously, RIDICULOUSLY loud.
Also, the 'disaster' might have been that the animals, in their uncontrolled, animalistic, red-zone territorial rage would've torn apart the humans, meaning these dogs would've become murderers (though carnivore animals always are anyway, they're ready to murder and not feel bad about it, they wouldn't feel remorse for killing YOU and eating your flesh, it would be a normal day for them), and that means they would've been put down or shot or something.
Hence, 'disaster'.
Do people here know what 'animation' means? It referse to MOVEMENT, not the VISUALS, lines or characters.
You should say 'ugly visuals' or 'ugly drawings', not 'ugly ANIMATION', as animation is the MOTION, not the drawings, and hence, can't really even BE 'ugly' or 'pretty', just 'fluid' or 'jerky' or 'realistic' or whatnot.
Please learn what english words, like 'animation' mean, before calling something ugly.
Also, 'ugly animation' (you should learn to use capital letters, too) is not a claim or a statement, it's not a sentence, so it can't be 'true'.
"This movie has ugly drawings" - now, THERE is something that can be either true or not, but just two words is not enough. How can you fail this much in a short post like that?
Well, there are many different possibilities.
1) FBI is pretty powerful, it can do pretty much anything it wants. Someone that has been long working there, knows how to use the corruption of that alphabet gang to their advantage, to mold anyone's life in any way they damn well please. This means trouble for Hector, who is probably going to go to prison for some trumped-up charges or maybe he is going to mysteriously 'disappear', or framed for murder or drugs or or or or..
..let's just say an FBI agent is in a more powerful position than some insurance guy with a silly moustache.
2) Why would Thib.. hm.. I am not even going to try to spell that. Why would the FBI agent guy care? He got his WEALTH, he can do whatever he wants, he doesn't have to hold on to some crummy agent desktop johnny job. He is FREE, he can buy a villa in south France and live as a lord for the rest of his days in luxury and gravy train.
3) I actually had something here, but forgot. Such is life.
First of all, it's millennium, not 'the Millenium'. Nothing is capitalized, and there is no 'the', in addition to there being TWO letter 'N's in the word. Well done, you managed to compress this many errors in such a short writing!
Secondly, everything starts from zero in the decimal system. The number 2000 clearly contains two thousands, which translates to 'two millennia'. The technical details of whether there was a year zero or isn't, are irrelevant, as the whole numbering system for years was not even invented at year one or year zero. Of course there was a year zero, if we so decide, because we can retroactively add it to the previous year, just like we (or that monk) retroactively created the arbitrary numbers for the years.
You can debate about this all you want, but for all intents and purposes, visually and realistically, and pragmatically speaking, the new millennium started at the year two thousand exactly, as that's where new things start from - the zero.
"..isn't technically entrapment, since he was working with Thibadeaux and the FBI to get Gin from the beginning.
They did, however, entrap her. "
So, it isn't entrapment, but they did entrap her. So it IS entrapment. You spoke against your own argument..
You're right.
At least there's an explanation this time. So many movies do this kind of thing; they shoot somewhere completely different, then claim the area to be something specific. What the heck, why don't they just use the name of the place they shot it at?
"It still sucks."
What, did you expect the movie to CHANGE between then and now?
This is the problem with people using terms like 'dated', 'aged' or 'not aged well'. Movies don't age, and the whole 'dated'-thing was supposed to just refer to 'being able to tell when the movies was made', not to be used as some kind of insult or description of whether the movie is worth watching or not.
Movies don't change, they don't age, they stay EXACTLY the same. If it sucked then, it's going to suck now, as it will never change.
If it was good then, and sucks now, then it was NEVER actually good, you just THOUGHT it was good - the only thing that changed here, was YOU. So saying the movie 'still' sucks, is wrong, because it never had a chance to change.
To me, this movie has potential, some gorgeous scenes - I love the Kuala Lumpur stuff and the castles in Scotland and all that. However, it becomes a live-action cartoon the moment anything 'interesting' starts to happen, as in Connery suddenly appearing and disappearing (a wizard with teleport spell??), and the less said about that really stupid and 100% unrealistic ending, the better.
This movie tries to be 'cooler than it is', and shoots itself in the foot in the process. At least the Charlie's Angels movies, especially the second one, KNOW they're ridiculous, unrealistic cartoon things that you are not supposed to think about, but just accept all the stupidity to have fun with them, so they actually ARE fun.
This movie tries to be serious, and yet shows us ridiculous scenes where nothing is realistic and the timing is way off (the 'movie magic' happens a bit too much with this one, where you KNOW someone should not have enough time to perform something, but SOMEHOW they managed to do it anyway - it's like something chasing someone, shown to be almost RIGHT at them - then the angle changes and suddenly it's much further away than it was previously. NO movie cheats as much this way as THIS movie does!)..
This movie is interesting, because it seemed so 'epic' (for the lack of better words), when I saw it the first time. It features beautiful Asian landscapes, Scottish castles, acrobatic feats, Connery's Bondian charisma, and the much-hyped (but not that interesting), completely unrealistic (as far as timing goes, for example) 'laser scene', and all this 'cool tech' and even the beginning of a 'new millennium'!
Nowadays when I watch this or even think about the movie, I can't arrive at any cohesive, coherent or feasible reason as to why anyone would like this movie. I can't remember WHAT I thought was so good about it.
I never thought sexual exploitation of men by putting a 'pretty woman moaning and doing sexy moves' was good content for a movie, and I never cared for Cathy's face that much (and I've seen better bodies in cheap 1970s porn flicks), her eyes look droopy and 'prema-scolding', only her mouth has sort of interesting shape from some angles, but even that's mostly because it reminds me of another mouth I used to like.
What I am trying to say, that to me, 'her presence' amounts to pretty much zero - her acting is OK, but not stellar, the two leads do not really look like they 'belong together', there's nothing that interesting about the stupid 'romance' crap.
The rest of the plot is also pretty paint-by-the-numbers heist stuff, and the ending is downright MAGIC all of the sudden - talk about Deus-Ex Machinas..
Maybe some day I will again find or 'rediscover' what I once thought was so good about this superficial popcorn flick, but right now I don't have much good to say about it. I do have a zillion questions, though, as many of the things make ABSOLUTELY no sense, the timings would never work in real life ('movie magic' is used a bit too much in this one), and people just appear and disappear like they can ACTUALLY teleport (the best explanation anyway).
It's a ridiculous, silly movie made for girls, except that they put a 'sexy thot' there for men..
"In a drama, the dialogue would be:
Vincent: Lieutenant, it's nice to meet you.
Frank: The feeling is mutual.
Get it now?"
I don't think so.
I think the joke is that Lieutenant is NOT a feeling, or is not usually thought of as being a feeling, and humorists have a way of pointing a light to things people would never usually think about, and thus see. Thinking of 'Lieutenant' as a 'feeling' is HILARIOUS, and I am really happy these comedy writers were talented enough to show is that even a mundane word like that can be a tremendous source of humor, if you use it right.
Part of the hilarity comes from Leslie Nielsen's absolute deadpan delivery as well - it's not a usual, 'friendly' or 'pretense-friendly' delivery, it's said in the funniest way possible, exactly because it's so serious and matter-of-fact..ial?
(When you say something 'matter-of-factly', is it 'matter-of-factial'?)
In any case, Drebin's interpretation of what Lieutenant is or can be, and then Leslie Nielsen's delivery together form a hilarious joke.
It's sad that even here, many don't get it..it's not a mistake, it's not an assumption, it's INTERPRETATION, and that's what makes it funny, Drebin TRULY and REALLY thinks 'Lieutenant' is a feeling!
"I understand the "feeling" doesn't really make sense but thats the absurdity of ZAZ."
Of course it makes sense; it's called 'a joke'.
"A variation of this actually happens in real life all the time, at least here in Australia.Person 1: Hi! (or G'day!)Person 2: Good thanks, how are you?Person 2, if sufficiently self aware, immediately feels stupid"
Anyone with ANY kind of awareness, doesn't act like an AUTOMATON in social situations, but expresses their thoughts honestly, then listens to the other entity's words, then responds to WHAT has been said, not ASSUME anything.
Maybe I am different, but I have NEVER made a mistake like that, as I don't 'jump the gun' in any conversations, assume what someone is GOING to say, but rather listen or watch what they're saying, and then respond to THAT.
I never understood how anyone can make mistakes like these, so my only explanation is that many people do not live in the moment, but they live in some kind of 'automated abstraction' in their head, without REALLY listening to anyone, and just assuming they know what someone says.
I never know what someone is going to say, so of course I am going to listen to whatever they say before I CREATE a response in my mind to what they say. How else am I going to know what to say? If I don't know what to say, I don't say anything.
You don't always have to say something. (I know people probably don't want to hear this from ME)
Why don't you ask him.. as he could answer ANY question.