MovieChat Forums > OuterSpace > Replies
OuterSpace's Replies
Yeah once he was bitten he was basically finished but both sides were caught in a standoff and there was really no choice but to leave him with Sarah and others, lest both groups start shooting at each other over this guy.
Still, he was clearly becoming deranged and if they weren't willing to take him off duty, at least don't let him handle the pole during the zombie wrangling. They had a much more capable person handling the gate while they were trusting Miguel with their lives...and we see how that went. Coupled with the earlier fiasco, very bad decisions being made.
Not quite. He was visibly cracking but not only were no attempts made to take him off duty, they kept putting him in situations where he would be a danger to the people involved, which he ultimately became. If Rhodes and co. sequestered him or did anything Sarah suggested, things would not have ended the way they did.
The only thing "cheesy" about the ending was Keanu pulling a Dirty Harry and tossing his badge. I mean it makes sense but it was such a cliche even back then. Otherwise I agree, the movie needed closure and the ending not only gives us that but also ties in the 50 year storm mentioned earlier in the movie.
And considering he got away with blatant murder, Cameron was actually right. =P
The people currently responsible for today's movies are either incapable of making something like this or the studios just don't want it. They already tried redoing this movie in 2015 and failed miserably.
Eh, I don't think it would have made a difference. It's a similar situation to the Alien 3 Theatrical vs Assembly Cut where the Assembly is a much better realized version of the film but all the fundamental issues that turned people off are still present.
The BvS DC is better and in particular, gives necessary insight into Superman's perspective but all the core issues from the theatrical still remain.
I know people responded very well to Fury Road's flamethrower guitar guy but so far it feels like this movie has leaned entirely into that level of absurdity to where it's coming off as silly and farcical.
"2. Not so much him.... but Adam rushes past them and opens the attic door and then slams it. Did the door itself open and slam from Delia's perspective? Seems like something they should've reacted to. Or was it only from Adams perspective and in reality, the door didn't move?
3. What I mean is: In the beginning, Juno scolds Maitlands for tearing their faces off...as if to say "how stupid, nobody can even see you." But later, she instructs them to do exactly that. She has them stretch out and distort their faces. For what? They can't see them."
2.Yes. They see any manipulation of real world objects but never the Maitlands themselves. One might assume Delia doesn't react because at this point she does not believe in ghosts and would rationalize it to be caused by something else.
3. Yeah I'm unclear on this as well. There's a very (very) vague implication they might be able to visibly manifest in some way if they continued studying the handbook but otherwise there's no reason to think anyone other than Lydia can see them at this point. Just have to accept it and move on. =P
What's the point? It would just be the exact same thing, again.
It's a great concept but it's also extremely limited to where they basically did everything in the Carpenter version and this "prequel" was already more of the same. Unless you just want the same thing endlessly, the only fresh take would be removing the intimate aspect and making it a wide scale event but that would be expensive and possibly ruin what people enjoyed about the concept.
I think the only time I found Chalamet truly unconvincing was when he had to deliver his "rousing speech" and he did the usual thing people do when they don't have a commanding presence, merely shout their lines to mask their weakness.
Other than that I felt his performance was in line with the way the character was written for this particular movie.
Doubtful since he doesn't seem familiar with the place when he arrives and seemingly only found himself there by following his stolen vehicle/possessions.
<blockquote>The thing is, introducing Corey might've been interesting, if they'd have done something with him. Or if it was meant a passing of the torch moment for future Halloweens. But he ended up getting killed anyway, so you wonder what the point of him was.</blockquote>
That's what ultimately killed the movie for me. I could have accepted the complete change in direction from the previous movie if this truly was an attempt to move on to the "next form of evil", so to speak. Yet you spend almost the entire movie building this guy up and then they completely drop it with zero pay-off; seemingly because they had tack on a cheapie final encounter with Laurie and Michael as that's what they sold the audience on in the first place.
Had they followed through with the Corey character I could have appreciated the attempt at a directional swerve but they fail to deliver on that and subsequently fail as a final satisfying conclusion to this current Laurie v Michael trilogy.
I do agree he didn't have anything personal against Conan and didn't seem too enthused with the prospect of having to kill him once the job was done(Although with Wilt's acting it's a little difficult to truly tell if that's what he was emoting...=P).
Though causing the cave-in wasn't any attempt at mercy or a way to avoid killing him. Taking out Conan and his party would be difficult, especially when he knew the princess would be against it too. So the cave-in was an "easy" way to trap them and allow the pursuing enemies to do the job. Plus it leaves their fate nebulous to the princess. Of course in the end that didn't work out so well.
Like you mentioned it was to show his prowess in blade combat so there would be more drama and stake with the final fight against Paul. Plus it allows the movie to show and further hammer in the ruthlessness of the character for the proceeding events.
And yes, the arena scene was in the book though there it was more in-depth and with some political intrigue going on which, like so much else, was removed from the movie.
The Tale of the Ghastly Grinner
Nah. They wanted a message sent with his very public murder and as such were likely prepared to take the heat from any fallout, so long this guy was dead(Back then it would have been easier to repress/bury this guy's information after his death as he hadn't made the rounds on the big networks yet).
Tony failed to execute his orders which brought down a new level of heat while the target was still alive to continue pushing the issue, now potentially untouchable as well. This failure also would have greatly embarrassed Sosa, who ensured a lot of very high level people that the situation would be handled.
Plus keep in mind, according to Lopez, Sosa was also a guy who would send a hit squad if you failed to produce the necessary mount of money in a deal with him. No matter what Tony "fucked" Sosa and there's only thing that happens to people who do that. =P
What FootOfDavros said.
Issues of the prequels were hotly debated since the first Phantom Menace and there was a heavy divide within the fanbase since release. When RLM did their videos they were just the first ones to do an articulated long form video commentary on the subject(Not just freaking over midichlorians) while also introducing a style of review comedy that was fresh at the time.
The idea all the Prequel hate started or was heavily amplified due to the RLM Plinkett videos is simply revisionism.
I think so. It definitely seemed like Tony wasn't going to kill him until he knew for absolute certain. Even after the phone call it doesn't seem like Tony is 100% committed to killing him until Frank admitted he was behind the attempted hit.
I'm not sure he would have shot Mel either had Mel not admitted he knew about the hit as well.
For me, definitely Robert Loggia as Frank Lopez. His accent was a bit cartoon-ish but it didn't matter since his performance was so entertaining and perhaps even endearing. Plus a great range of believable emotion on display; particularly his final scene.
As a kids movie it's fine. Though even as a kids movie, for a theatrical feature it did feel very, fluff.