MovieChat Forums > CalvinJarrett > Replies
CalvinJarrett's Replies
That was another thing I found incredulous - 'what the new place will bring him.'
Did anyone else get the impression that he was totally screwed from an employment perspective? What hope did he have to secure another teaching job at anywhere near a prestigious private school as Barton with the basis of his departure looming over him. We know that he was largely innocent, but he fell on his sword and was fired under the cloud of a profanity-laced diatribe at a student's parents. What school would hire him except the roughest, inner city public school? What other skills did he have to secure alternative employment? Even if he wrote his monograph about Cathage, would it be published? Would it sell - except to a very narrow audience of other esoteric individuals?
Yeah, I watched the whole movie, including the tacked-on ending.
The impression I got of Crane was that she was loose. There's nothing to indicate the man she kissed at the door of her party was her fiancee. Just a random guy she's having sex with, and she would have had sex with Hunham too. Otherwise, she would have been a total cocktease, and that just doesn't make sense within the plot of this movie? Why devote so much screen time to an otherwise friendly, wholesome character manipulating the protagonist?
Umm, excuse me, TrentnQuarantino, you don't know me (or roger1, for that matter) to make any comments about our superficiality or knowledge of women. I'm commenting on a film that takes place in 1970-71 and what I find credible. It in no way indicates how I view the real world or how well I understand women in my life and times. Say what you will about the messengers, I/we just think the filmmakers went too far to make the lead character revolting while trying to make him lovable to the opposite gender.
I don't go in for ranking lists. As you alluded, the more time goes by, the less older movies make those lists. The judges tend to be younger people, and they don't have the same appreciation for vintage movies like you and I do, lets. There, that's as elitist as I'm going to get. Hopefully, it makes me sound old and not elitist.
I know a lot of people look at the psychiatrist's explanation at the end of Psycho as hokey, but I think it was necessary at the time. People have to remember that a 1960 audience would have no understanding of dissociative identity disorder. Maybe ... maybe Three Faces of Eve (1957) would lend some aid. But that character was essentially non-criminal, and the trigger for her alters was complete b*llsh*t. So, while clumsy, it was necessary to spoon-feed the audience the psychopathy of Norman's mind. It also made the final scene all the more chilling.
Apparently, all it takes is a bathroom deodorizing spay under clothed underarms and the hope for some ass at a Christmas party.
I never saw La Dolce Vita (or any Fellini movies, for that matter). Not that I'm avoiding it/them, it's more like delaying gratification by waiting to open a meaningful gift.
I seem to recall seeing Le Boucher. Did that star Stephane Audran? I have such a hazy memory of it because I had to have seen it in the '90's or early 2000's. But I wonder if it had to do with a serial killer and perhaps a kidnapped child?
Yes, I am jealous of your moviechat buddy. Hitchcock was a marketing genius when it came to Psycho. I think he mandated that theaters not allow patrons to enter the theater late to create buzz and eliminate outside distractions from the plot/viewing experience. There were so many firsts. The first time a toilet was shown on film. That shower scene. If I'm not mistaken, the first time a serial killer was shown on film (save Peter Lorre in M, but that's not quite the same thing). But, surely, the first time dissociative identity disorder was depicted on film. That scene where Martin Balsam bites it. That had to have broken records of on screen violence at the time. I also wonder if a corpse/skeleton was ever depicted so graphically like toward the end of Psycho. I could well see how a 1960 audience member would run out of the theater or at least into he bathroom. Certainly not today, but they must not have seen anything like this before.
This is the correct answer.
I'm with you, SandyR. I thought she was very attractive and not a bad actress in the least. Nice husky voice to counteract Veronica Cartwright's higher-pitched voice.
It's okay that PersistentViewer was underwhelmed by Psycho, letess. Perhaps with repeat viewings, s/he will come to appreciate it. However, Psycho, perhaps more than any other film, has been the victim of overhype. When you constantly hear the plaudits of critics who appraised the film and fans who were fortunate enough see it in theaters in 1960, it's practically impossible for the film to live up to the expectations PersistentViewer et. al. have created in their imaginations.
What can I say about such a person? Nothing critical. Vertigo is a fantastic film and one that I think PersistentViewer will appreciate. I acknowledge that film appreciation is an art form, but I don't think it serves anyone well to be elitist about cinema. There's room for everyone's opinion when it comes to film commentary. It's never too late to join the table. I also think that Roger Corman has his place in the movie business. Though not all hits, I think he brought something to the art form that was unique and pioneering. He made The Baby (1973), right?
Yes, I felt the same way: "I wanted to like it." It seemed like an old school movie in an old school, no less. A throw-back to the movies of my youth and teen years before superheroes and action franchises ruled the day. Sadly, I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself looking at the bottom of my computer screen seeing how many more minutes remained. Never a good sign of your overall enjoyment of a film when you find yourself doing that!
Perhaps the litigation that seems to be fomenting concerning the film's authorship will cause the 'making of' The Holdovers better than the film itself.
I agree with you, JoWilli. It was a pretty boring, and predictable film.
Not exactly responsive your question, I'll admit, but I thought the mother not only looked like Donna Mills, she had character and storyline similar to Abby (the role Mills made famous) in the early seasons of Knots Landing.
Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men was from 1957, and it is a movie that - no matter when you see it - you'll be talking about it. It is timeless.
Your complaint is what most critics love about Psycho. The fact that we're led to believe this is a story about a troubled woman's theft/embezzlement and her get-away when in fact this is just a device to get her into that motel and within the maniacal clutches of Norman Bates. After talking-to Norman and (erroneously) considering him to be an odd yet well-intentioned person, she was all set to return to Phoenix, return the money and face the music. However, someone else had other plans for her after she innocently broke bread with Norman and engaged in simple conversation. Then the focus changes. The stolen money was the Maguffin. The story switches and becomes something much scarier than whether a thief will get away with the money.
Cena was fantastic here. He's one of those actors who is willing to do anything. No shame. He just gives it his all whether it's the grossest of gross-out humor or the most authentic of dramatic acting. The central premise of this film is ridiculous, but if you can get past it, Cena makes it worthwhile. It was really very meta because Cena played an actor playing a fictional character who essentially altered his personality to make that fictional character real. Cena became 'Rock Hard Rod,' and then he became Ricky Stanicky. For what could have been a throwaway comedy, it really sticks with you.
I heard good things about Rounders and may have seen bits and pieces. Was that the one where John Malkovich played the Russian gambler who said, "Mr. Son-of-bitch"? Anyhow, I'll have to watch the full movie and setback to you about Mike and Worms. Matt Damon movie, if memory serves?
I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember who you are referring to in terms of Mike and Worms. Give me a little help. I used to play Hold-em with friends and acquaintances in the Chicago area. Nothing extreme. Maybe $30-$50 buy-ins. Third place would get their money back, second place got a little profit, first place got the biggest payout, of course.
13 years too late, but kudos to you, Disador. You crystallized the meaning of the ending perfectly.
I think what Altman was trying to say is that the police/authorities consider professional gamblers to be second class citizens in our society. Of course, the source of the money that was stolen from them shouldn't matter in the least. The fact that they were winners beaten by a sore loser shouldn't matter as well. However, these victims were arrested and treated the same (if not worse) as their attackers. Altman was trying to illustrate how these guys really had no safety net. They could only depend on each other.
What was so interesting (and perhaps a strain of credulity) was how good of friends these guys were to one another. My hunch is that most gamblers are not such buddies, and the relationship between Charlie Waters (Gould) and Bill Denny (Segal) is ultra-rare. But it was the heart of the movie; I wouldn't have it any other way, believable or not.
Yes, Barbara Ruick died in her hotel room while the film was being shot. I thought she was excellent in her role as the bartender. It was such a natural performance, and she really had an understated beauty about her. It was though when you first see her, she's this middle-aged (or approaching middle age) Reno bartender in glasses. But then she smiles - and keeps smiling - clearly enjoying all of Gould and Segal's schtick. Chiming in every now and then (likely ad-libbing). And I felt 'this is a beautiful scene, and she is a beautiful actress.' If she had to die at such a young age, it was at least a decent swan song to the talent she possessed.