MovieChat Forums > sunezno > Replies
sunezno's Replies
I thought the exact same thing when I first heard the names of these movies lol
Slaughtered Vomit Dolls and Slow Torture Puke Chamber make me want to learn a musical instrument just so that I can form a band and name it either of those perfect names.
I was thinking the same thing. I was also yelling at the damn kid to tackle her from behind or something, but they were all just incomprehensibly stupid :(
I'm just glad they all got their just deserts and the movie had a happy ending.
THAT'S who it was!! I kept thinking, "She looks similar to Maggie Lawson from Psych, but I know it's not her... But she looks SO familiar!!" (I forgot to check the cast.)
It's interesting how similar they look.
They showed two other brain-blowouts, so I doubt it had anything to do with movie censors.
On one hand, I get what you're saying, and I applaud the openmindedness. But I think it's one thing to say that Joe's feelings were understandable, but it's another to say that they were understandable <i>because</i> some young boys feel some attraction to older men. If Joe <i>had</i> been doing sexual things to Danny, it wouldn't make it okay or understandable simply because Danny had been okay with it (or because some other young boys might be). To be clear, I do agree with what you're saying, but I think they're two separate issues, not one.
But also, Joe doesn't say that he and Danny were in love, just that he loved Danny. And the flashbacks at the end of season 1 show that while Danny might've been okay with their meetups at first, because he enjoyed their conversations and hanging out (quality father-son time that he never got to enjoy with his own dad, and which Joe didn't get to experience with Tom), he seemed to be getting uncomfortable with the physical closeness that Joe was requesting, and knew that he would ask for more soon.
And I'll be honest, when I was around that age, I seemed to <i>only</i> have a thing for older guys. But that was just daddy issues on my part, and I think what I was really after was the love and attention and protection from a father figure that I didn't have growing up without a dad. I might've mistaken it for a romantic or sexual attraction back then, but I'm just glad that none of those guys even considered making any sort of moves, despite how into them I seemed or was.
Kids are still learning and experiencing their emotions; adults should know better.
Anyway, I think you're right about Joe, that he wasn't gay and wasn't a pedophile or anything. I think that he was enjoying the attention and affection (even platonic) that his relationship with Danny gave him. And as he said, it was something that he could have for himself, and secrets can have their own thrill or sense of romance and adventure about them.
The way I saw it (just recently rewatched it), at first I assumed that they'd had consensual sex -- rough, kinky, super sexy sex, but consensual all the same. But after it's mentioned that they didn't have sex at all, I believe what happened was that he did kiss her back initially, and they started to get sexy, but then he must've stopped it and said he couldn't do that or something. Then she got all scratchy.
I feel like sometimes it's him doing it without noticing or intending, but a lot of times I feel like she's the one getting all up in his space and creating these "sexual tension" moments that are super creepy and gross lol
I think what I dislike the absolute most about her is her childish emotional shit. Like, dude, you're an adult, use your fucking words!
If she senses even a whiff of the possibility of a woman in Tony's life, she gets absolutely cunty and petty and immature, and it really doesn't look good on anyone, let alone this person that's supposed to be a professional.
Then there was one scene where she and Tony were talking about brutal rapes and murders, and she's standing uncomfortably close to him and looking at him with gross bedroom eyes and a sexy-coy smile the whole time. Not only is it just completely inappropriate for the moment and conversation, but it's also just gross all around lol
I feel like she just has two moods: flirtatious and jealous/cunty, and neither are attractive whatsoever.
I'm on a rewatch now, on season 2 episode 3, at the beginning where she crashes the widow's vow-renewal ceremony with Tony, and I can't help but yell at the screen about what a selfish asshole she is.
Like goddamn, if you like him, tell him that, be upfront and use your words. Either way, don't act so childish and jealous at the mere existence of another woman in his life.
Whew. Sorry for the rant. She really grinds my gears.
This comment makes me feel a lot better lol In that first scene where they kissed, I still couldn't tell how old any of them were supposed to be-- he looked maybe 10 and I just assumed she was early 20s like some of the others in the group appeared to be (though I later remembered that we saw her with some of the other girls at the very beginning in the schoolyard, putting her somewhere in her teens).
So when she asked if he wanted to kiss, I was thinking at most it would be a closed-mouth smooch for maybe a second or two and that's it. Then she started tongue-ing him, and I was like, <i>What the actual fuck??</i> lol
I'm glad to know that not only were the characters closer in age than I'd originally thought, but that the actors were, too.
Though toward the end of the film we find out that Combo and Lol slept together before he went to prison, and she said she was 16 at the time, and he would've been around 29. So that was pretty gross, regardless of age-of-consent laws.
I just rewatched that scene on the bridge where Bill is talking to the female student, because I'd forgotten how exactly all of that went down. She claims that she had written him a love poem in Latin (that was pure fantasy, she admits), but that another student read it over her shoulder in the library and went to the department about it (because he was still salty about Bill having given him a B+ on a paper last year or something). Then that's where Bill's assistant chimed in with what she saw in his office that one day.
It sounded like the female student even told them that she was the one that came onto him, and that he said absolutely not, but that didn't really matter to the higher-ups. So it was the "perception is reality" shit that screwed him over.
I'm watching it right now, and overall I'm really enjoying it, but I have noticed a couple of small instances that felt kind of awkward.
I do like that he tries to point out the little details in a lot of the scenes, though. I hate watching commentaries hoping to hear them talk about specific things but instead they're going on about unrelated stuff.
The reason that she brings up Whitman in that scene (quoting from TBN in the audio commentary):
"And this is, of course, where Walt Whitman is introduced. And the presence of Whitman in the movie, and the allusions to Whitman -- other than directly what's quoted here being valuable to Bill on his journey, as well as the double entendre with <i>Leaves of Grass</i> being marijuana and the title to Whitman's book -- is the notion that Walt Whitman wrote in what's called free-verse, allowing each poem to find its own meter, rather than using a prescribed meter like that of a sonnet or iambic pentameter. And what Bill discovers in the movie is that he doesn't need to prescribe his own life; he can allow his life to proceed in the rythym of its own meter rather than something preordained or decided upon by him."
There's so much depth to this movie, and that's one thing that I've always loved about it.
I'm watching the commentary now, and they're mentioning and explaining so many things that might not be easily picked up on initially.
It's been a while since I've watched it, but I think maybe that part was what needed to happen in order for him to end up in Oklahoma at the end. If he had <i>actually</i> done something unprofessional with a student, that would show the audience that he's not a good guy, ya know? But the way it played out, and the way the Harvard people saw it, if I remember correctly, was like, "Hey, we don't necessarily believe her claims, but it would still look bad on us if we hired you now."
Completely bullshit and unfair since Bill didn't do anything wrong at all, but like I said, I think it was also the catalyst for him staying in Oklahoma after everything went down with his family.
So then he doesn't really have any reason to go back to the east coast, and he's found love with what's-her-name in OK, and reunited with his mom, and can just kind of relax and enjoy life. Especially after losing his brother, and then narrowly escaping death himself.
Anyway, yeah, I think it was just the believable and necessary catalyst while also keeping him as a good person that got a raw deal, essentially.
And remember, when parting ways with the dentist at the airport toward the beginning of the movie, the dentist says, "I never take accidental encounters for granted." There's the foreshadowing there.
I haven't watched the movie in a few years (just about to rewatch it today), but I think that Brady's plan could've worked, had Bill not have had that serendipitous meeting with the chatty dentist on the airplane. None of them could've anticipated that, or what happened as a result.
But I think that that's part of the movie's meaning, too.
Also, Bill's teaching career went completely off the rails and into the dumpster, not because of anything that he actually did, but because of the female student making crazy claims that, while completely unfounded, did not look good for Bill. So in a sense, for both of the brothers, it's a reminder that no matter how well you plan something, there's always a chance that something else comes out of left field and totally destroys your initial plans.
Exactly. They're the most snowflakey of anyone, but they're too blind to see it.
I love that you jumped to self-defense at being called a snowflake, but you're in no way denying being a racist...
And essentially your comment is just saying "conservatives are racists, and liberals are snowflakes. You can't mix the two."
Look at you guys, getting all triggered because of the cast of a movie lol
I haven't even seen Part 2 yet, but what clinched it for me was when I saw that her skull fracture was on the side of her head and not the top. The top would indicate a blow from above, but the side would indicate that it was someone closer to her height.
I was glad that they kind of showed that toward the end of Part 1, but they seemed to be doing that experiment based on the amount of force necessary to fracture her skull, as opposed to the angle and trajectory.
That would certainly explain the gaps! I would love to see the extra stuff that they took out, because I have way too many questions that weren't answered or even mentioned in Part 1.
I couldn't agree more. I also had a lot of questions about the ransom note, especially regarding the handwriting. If it had been typed, that's maybe one thing, but it was handwritten, and went from chicken-scratch to more legible, which nobody mentioned at all.
Idk, maybe it was lack of time that limited them getting into everything like that, but I had more questions than answers about a lot of things.
I do love all of those crime-fighters, though, and I really appreciate the time and energy they put into this. But I also felt like a lot was left out in terms of discussing the forensic evidence.
The very first cop got to the house at 5:59am, a good 35 minutes before any family and/or friends showed up. That cop had ample time before they got there to tape off the crime scene and order a perimeter around the property, and he should have <i>removed</i> people from the crime scene, not invite more people in to contaminate it.
That was the first and most egregious fuck-up of the initial investigation, I think. But none of these present-day Powerhouse investigators mentioned anything about crime scene contamination until talking about the body being moved (the second time by a cop, no less!).
Which reminds me, they said it was "only" moved those two times, but then why do they show an "actual crime scene photo" of the body in the room in the basement? They either moved it back there for the picture, which is a big no-no, or they recreated the picture, which is also a big no-no.
Anyway, needless to say, I was constantly yelling at my laptop while watching it.
It just felt like there were so many important things that they failed to mention or consider. And again, a lot of it is the fault of the initial "investigation", of course.
But when they're talking about the skull fracture and Henry Lee mentioned (the lack of) blood, tissue, and hair on the flashlight, the forensic pathologist mentioned that the skin could've bent with the blow instead of breaking. Which should be a simple question of, "Was the skin broken or not?" But they dance around that and never just say whether or not it was.
Again, maybe that's just the editing, but I felt like there were a lot of instances where simple facts or questions were just ignored or not mentioned.
And nobody mentioned the handwriting of the ransom note. It went from chicken-scratch to legible (possibly indicating panic at the beginning and then focus by the end). Also, were the previous attempts at the note still there? What was different from those first attempts to the final draft?
I have so many questions!