Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

If It Wasn't For That One Thing: How Movies Could've Been Better


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

War of the Worlds (2005)

Would've liked it more, if those annoying kids died.

Especially the son.

There's no way the son should have survived, and the movie would have been better if it ended with the ex-wife just saying Thank you. The daughter would have been better if she hadn't screamed constantly.  But this is a Spielberg movie, so the kids have to survive and the girl has to scream repeatedly.

 

Speaking of, Saving Private Ryan would have been improved if the cemetery scenes at the start and end of the movie were left on the cutting room floor. That, and Tom Hanks yelling "Earn it".

 

And since it's shit on Spielberg day, Roy Scheider should have paddled to shore alone at the end of  Jaws.

Edited by Constantinople
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I wanted to like To Sir, With Love, and I might have (if only for my deep and abiding love for Sidney Poitier), if they hadn't insisted on playing that dreary, clunky, un-hummable theme song over and over. Seriously? The powers that be couldn't have waited until the final scene and the end credits? They had to trot out that song every 20 minutes to the point where, if it were person, we'd wish death upon it? I mean, no offense to Lulu (who's a decent singer), but I was about ready to curse her very name when her big scene finally arrived!

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
  • Love 1
Link to comment

For me, it's The Monkees' only feature film, "Head" (1968).  If a coherent storyline had been used for the film rather than the vignette style ultimately used, the film could have been far more popular.  According to various group interviews, the band, Jack Nicholson, and Bob Rafelson toked up in a hotel room for a few days and let a tape recorder roll as they discussed ideas for the film.  That's what ended up onscreen.  It left fans confused (those old enough to attend, the film was initially given one of the first "R" ratings in movie history, even though nothing in the film seems to have earned such a strong rating) and with their series off the air and slipping record sales, the band's fate was sealed.

 

In the film, Titanic (1997), I wished two major plot points had been changed:  first that Rose not be so eager to live a downwardly mobile lifestyle with Jack (do you know how tough it was to live poor in 1912??  Especially someone who'd never done manual labor in her life).  The second, that her finacee Cal Hockley hadn't been portrayed as such a jerk.  I would have found it far more satisfying if they had felt a bit apprehensive at their engagement (due to being pressured by Rose's mother), but Cal coming through by the film's end, watching their love blossom during the voyage.  Instead we got a rebellious rich girl going at in in the backseat of a car in the cargo hold!  Bah!!

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Showing modern air forces as if they were the 8th USAF with a thousand bomber raid instead of at most a few dozen jets. In Independence Day after the aliens knocked down the entire west  coast USMC air-wing somehow a thousand new fighter planes were found to attack the invasion ship. And then we found veterans to fly the planes instead of the many active duty pilots who were not in flying billets and lost in the first attack

Link to comment
(edited)

I guess I get to be the oldster who brings up Casablanca.  Before writing this up, I googled and found this interesting article, which blew me away:  http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_14/section_1/artc15A.html

 

ETA: If you follow that link, it will give you spoilers + detailed analysis.

 

I had no idea that anyone thought the singing of "La Marseillaise" was the pivotal moment of the movie and a good choice.  To me, it was jarring and mood-destroying, brought the momentum of the movie to a screeching halt, and prevents an otherwise beautiful movie from ever making it close to my "best of" movies list.  

 

The Sidney Poitier comment upthread jolted my memory: the other mistake that pops to mind is the actress who plays the daughter in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.  It is still an incredible movie and I love it a lot.  But for such a stellar cast (everyone else was perfection), you would think they would have done better casting the daughter.

 

I'm going to have to think of some more examples.  Great challenge question.

Edited by ToxicUnicorn
Link to comment

The Sidney Poitier comment upthread jolted my memory: the other mistake that pops to mind is the actress who plays the daughter in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.  It is still an incredible movie and I love it a lot.  But for such a stellar cast (everyone else was perfection), you would think they would have done better casting the daughter.

 

She's Katharine Hepburn's niece. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Mamie Gummer playing Meryl Streep's daughter in their upcoming movie ...

 

It looks like a film that Meryl is doing as a favour to her daughter in hopes of waking up her dormant career.

Link to comment

A movie I really like is High Crimes, a 2002 movie starring Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, & Jim Caviezel, which I first saw on a plane soon after its release. But there are 3 things that always bug me now, when I see it on TV.

If nobody else here's seen the movie, it's about a married couple from the San Francisco area (Ashley & Jim) who are a lawyer & ex-Marine/now some kind of artist/craftsman, respectively, drawn into a big legal mystery involving the massacre of innocent civilians somewhere in South America, allegedly committed by Jim & some of his brothers in arms, which was also apparently covered up by the Marines.

Despite not being a military lawyer, & knowing nothing about military law/court martial procedure (compared to civilian law/court trial procedures) Ashley signs on to defend Jim during his court martial, after he's arrested/set up for his involvement in the massacre--along with the help of a military lawyer assigned to the case before Ashley can get down to the base where Jim's being held in a Southern California town, apparently somewhere near Santa Ana (the John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana is cited as where Ashley flies into from San Francisco when she sets off to clear Jim's name), & a recovering alcoholic civilian lawyer, who's also a former military lawyer with his share of (apparently negative) experiences in courts martial (Morgan Freeman), who Ashley's referred to by the law firm she works for.

The story gets a bit convoluted, but in my opinion is still good, from that point. Ashley finds out Jim isn't who she thought he was--among other things, the name she knows him by/married him under turns out *not* to be his real name; members of the local Marine Corps apparently are involved in all sorts of machinations to keep Ashley, Morgan, & the other lawyer from uncovering what they don't want found out about the massacre & clearing Jim's name--such as an oil slick-related car accident which causes Ashley to lose the baby she didn't yet know she was carrying, a baby Ashley & Jim were having difficulty conceiving at the start of the movie. Then, the charges against Jim are withdrawn thanks to a classified document involved with a covert op that the original massacre was a cover for, which Ashley's team discovers & takes to a General (Bruce Davison), threatening to make it public if Jim's not cleared.

But... Morgan's doing some other investigating into Jim on the side, on a tip, & he learns Jim's apparently responsible for the subsequent US deaths of 3 Marine witnesses to whatever misdeeds he was involved with--Ashley thought Jim was going to their cities for stuff connected to his artwork/craftsmanship. Jim pretends to leave the house for something--they've gone back to Northern California since he was cleared--when Morgan calls with what turns out to be this info; he listens in to the phone call & he tries to kill Ashley afterwards. She's saved when a Latino guy, who's apparently from the region where the massacre/covert op took place, somehow knows she's in trouble, gets into the house & kills Jim.

Then, at the end, Ashley's back in the Southern California town where the court martial took place. She's hoping to work with Morgan at his law office & start a new life.

After that very long synopsis (sorry!), the 3 things that bug me about the movie are:

1. Jim & Ashley's last name in the movie (before his other name is discovered) is "Kubik". There's not a consistent pronunciation of that name, among the other characters, to be found throughout the movie. Some say "coo-bick", others say "cue-bick"; some, inexplicably, actually say it both ways.

2. When Ashley's in Southern California she holds a press conference, to try to pressure the General into having Jim's court martial called off, by declaring his innocence & standing by him publicly. At the end of a local news report on this press conference--which should have only been seen in the Southern California area where the court martial's taking place--Ashley gets a phone call from her boss in *Northern* California. He says he saw the report on her press conference (apparently on TV at the same time Ashley saw it), the firm Ashley works for can no longer support her efforts, for whatever reason, & by the end of the call Ashley's telling Northern California boss she'll send her resignation from his firm on Monday.

I don't understand how someone in *Northern* California saw a news report that, logically at least, should've only aired as local news in a specific part of *Southern* California.

3. In the last scene, as Ashley's pulling up in front of Morgan's law office again, she's listening to a radio station which *clearly* identifies itself as being from "the Bay area". Morgan's office is supposed to be in *Southern* California, as I think I mentioned above. I've never heard Southern California referred to as "the Bay area", only Northern California.

That's fine if they wanted to film the whole movie in/around San Francisco. But somebody who deals with Continuity/whatever controls the stuff heard on a radio in the movie should've paid more attention & realized a) the Bay area isn't normally a nickname used for Southern California (in my experience, anyway) & b) you also normally cannot pick up a Northern California-based radio station in Southern California.

The Continuity person *also* should've caught the differing, & inconsistent, pronunciations of the character name "Kubik".

And the writer really should've realized it was *stupid* to have Ashley's Northern California boss be able to see a news report which should've only been airing in Southern California, & for it to appear, in the scene, as if Ashley & her boss were watching it on the same newscast at the same time because the boss called Ashley about it as soon as it ended. You can't see Southern California TV stations in Northern California, even on cable--just like you can't pick up Northern California radio stations in Southern California.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

You wrote a whole lot about High Crimes and didn't even mention that the "military lawyer assigned to the case" (and who boinks Ashley's sister I think?) is none other than Adam Scott, aka Ben Wyatt. I guess that was a thing that didn't help the movie be any better.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

You wrote a whole lot about High Crimes and didn't even mention that the "military lawyer assigned to the case" (and who boinks Ashley's sister I think?) is none other than Adam Scott, aka Ben Wyatt. I guess that was a thing that didn't help the movie be any better.

In my defense, I didn't remember who it was (Plus, honestly, I'm not "into" Adam Scott. Sorry! I couldn't even get into Parks and Recreation when he was on it despite the fact I like Rob Lowe *a lot* & he was in it at the same time, for 4 seasons).

And yes, he banged Ashley Judd's sister in the movie (Amanda Peet)--or she banged him; I forget who it was said initiated it, after Ashley found out, got pissed, & accused Amanda of being unable to take anything seriously (Amanda's character was more irresponsible about things than Ashley's character--though she came through when Ashley needed comforting after her miscarriage). Amanda also stayed behind with Adam's character when Ashley & Jim went back to Northern California.

Another thing that bugged: That hairstyle at least some of the military guys had in the movie, I think including Adam's character, where the sides are buzzed really short but the tops are "normal" & look untouched.

Link to comment

Two things that always bug me in military movies - the hair cuts, and sloppy salutes.  Even the higher ranks in movies perform sloppy salutes.  Learn how to salute properly if you're going to play a service member.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

Sweet Home Alabama could have been better if Reese Witherspoon's character had married her fiance rather than "reconnecting" with her ex and her hometown.  I don't mind that she stopped being embarrassed about her small southern town origins but I just couldn't buy her falling back in love with her ex and dumping Patrick Dempsey.  I do give credit to the screenwriter for not making his character a jerk  (they saved the bad attitude reveal for his mother played by Candace Bergen) but at least he stayed a nice guy.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

 

I had no idea that anyone thought the singing of "La Marseillaise" was the pivotal moment of the movie and a good choice.  To me, it was jarring and mood-destroying, brought the momentum of the movie to a screeching halt, and prevents an otherwise beautiful movie from ever making it close to my "best of" movies list.

Casablanca is one of my favorite movies and I think your reaction to the La Marseillaise scene is the first negative opinion I've ever encountered about that scene. Opinions and opinions are the beauty of the internet, so we read on.    Why do you feel that it destroys the mood of the film?

 

I agree with the poster above about Jerry McGuire - it's a bleak ending to me as well - two people who settle for each other, not two people who find love with each other.

Another classic romantic comedy that I like a lot but don't buy as a plausible romance - The African Queen.  Who here really thinks that those two characters are going to remain together once they get off that boat and off the river?

  • Love 2
Link to comment

(edited)

A large number of the actors in the Marsellaise scene in Casablanca were real refugees from the Nazis, the emotions being shown were real.

 

The Nazis issued posters with the face of Marcel Dalio (the croupier in Casablanca) to illustrate what a "typical Jew" looks like.  (Just so they could be watched out for, or whatever.)   I can imagine the emotions were running very high in the room (okay, on the set) during that scene, given how many of the actors were knew firsthand what life in Nazi Germany, and the countries it invaded and annexed, was like.

Edited by harrie
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Casablanca is one of my favorite movies and I think your reaction to the La Marseillaise scene is the first negative opinion I've ever encountered about that scene. Opinions and opinions are the beauty of the internet, so we read on.    Why do you feel that it destroys the mood of the film?

 

If "muted" could be a tempo, I would say one of Casablanca's most beautiful features is that it flows at a muted pace.  There are ebbs and flows, with peaks of desperation and the surfacing of emotions (remembered love, deeply torn loyalties) that are all the more poignant because no one is wailing or making a huge scene.  It helps that the stars are Ingrid Bergman and a very restrained Humphrey Bogart.

 

I appreciate that there are serious political issues going on at the same time as there is this very human love story, and as I've read about the scene, I get that the song is used to highlight that importance.  I think the reactions in the room are fine.  It's the singer, and the way the singer sings, that I hate.  It's so strident.  What can I say.  To me, it's a really ugly section of audio inserted into a lovely film.  I think the same point could have been made better, even if they had kept everything the same but the singer.

 

Sorry for the delayed reply.  I forget where I've posted!

Link to comment
(edited)

I think Gilda is a fantastic film noir, and Rita Hayworth is unforgettable (I hold the UO she had it all over Marilyn Monroe), but I really wish Gilda and Johnny hadn't reconciled in the end. It's not just that it feels pat and phony (and, boy howdy, does it ever), but I'm always amazed at what a reprehensible little shit Johnny is. Aside from the fact that he's a weasel and a thug who long ago ground his moral compass to dust under his heel, but the way he systematically piles mental abuse on Gilda during their marriage is kind of horrifying. No joke, most villains from Hitchcock films don't behave the way Johnny does. It doesn't help matters any that Glenn Ford had one of the original punchable faces.

 

Now, does Gilda wise up, steal away into the night, never to return, potential future bigamy charges be damned? No! She actually tells Johnny, "there's no need to apologize! We've both been stinkers!" 

 

The hell? Lady, you did nothing wrong! You cheated on your abusive, psycho husband, wined and dined with men, danced and sang provocatively... that's really it! You have nothing to apologize for, whereas Johnny has everything to apologize for! And I know I'll get lectured that "it was the 1940s, it was a different time!", but I don't think that negates my point.

 

While I'm being honest, I desperately wish Johnny got speared by Ballin's weapon (Ballin too, of course) in the end, then Gilda would be free from both those dirtbags. 

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
Link to comment

This reminds me of A Woman's View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, 1930-1960 by Jeanine Basinger, which describes how so many movies were wish fulfillment for women for 90 minutes, followed by a quick nod to Production Code at the end.  People focus on the normative endings, but she contends that the previous 90 minutes of subversive female behavior were more important to the movies' target audience.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

so many movies were wish fulfillment for women for 90 minutes, followed by a quick nod to Production Code at the end.

 

Boy howdy.  So many of my favorite movies from the '30s and '40s fit in this "If not for that one thing" topic, with the one thing being the ending.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

(edited)

 

It's the singer, and the way the singer sings, that I hate.  It's so strident.  What can I say.  To me, it's a really ugly section of audio inserted into a lovely film.

Okay, that I can understand.  I don't agree, but I definitely do understand.  Thanks.

 

Glenn Ford had one of the original punchable faces

Damn, I've never liked him either.  I don't have a good reason for it, I just don't like watching him.

Edited by ratgirlagogo
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I think I might have actually liked Crazy Stupid Love if Emily had shown SOME remorse over throwing her marriage away or at least owning up to her part in the whole mess instead spending the movie acting like a pissy hypocritical bitch. And why couldn't she have been the one to make the big apology speech at the graduation instead of sitting there with that smug smile looking like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth?

You know at least Cal owned up to his mistakes at the end! But Emily just acted she never did anything wrong! I so wish that the movie had ended with Cal moving on with another person and dumped Emily's insufferable ass for good.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I think I might have actually liked Crazy Stupid Love if Emily had shown SOME remorse over throwing her marriage away or at least owning up to her part in the whole mess instead spending the movie acting like a pissy hypocritical bitch. And why couldn't she have been the one to make the big apology speech at the graduation instead of sitting there with that smug smile looking like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth?

You know at least Cal owned up to his mistakes at the end! But Emily just acted she never did anything wrong! I so wish that the movie had ended with Cal moving on with another person and dumped Emily's insufferable ass for good.

 

Yeah, I really like that movie except for the part where he Cal goes back to her at the end. It didn't feel earned, and I really agreed with Jessica's view of Emily.

 

Though that has reminded me of another aspect of the movie I didn't like. That being the son's crush on Jessica being treated as something that should be encouraged and righteous, even when he was embarrassing her at school by making these inappropriate, grand declarations of love. I found it really off that, not only was the kid not admonished for doing that, but that Cal acted like he'd somehow wronged him when it was revealed that Jessica had a crush on him.

 

Oh, and then the suggestion that Jessica gave the kid those naked photos of herself... presumably for him to masturbate to. I mean... what?

  • Love 5
Link to comment

I fully recognize Charlie's Angels isn't the greatest movie on the planet, but to me, it is enjoyable fun. However: the parts with Tom Green just make the movie come to a screeching halt. They aren't funny, they're clearly only in the movie because Drew Barrymore wanted to give her then-husband some work, and I have to fast-forward those parts every time I watch the movie.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

If "muted" could be a tempo, I would say one of Casablanca's most beautiful features is that it flows at a muted pace.  There are ebbs and flows, with peaks of desperation and the surfacing of emotions (remembered love, deeply torn loyalties) that are all the more poignant because no one is wailing or making a huge scene.  It helps that the stars are Ingrid Bergman and a very restrained Humphrey Bogart.

 

I appreciate that there are serious political issues going on at the same time as there is this very human love story, and as I've read about the scene, I get that the song is used to highlight that importance.  I think the reactions in the room are fine.  It's the singer, and the way the singer sings, that I hate.  It's so strident.  What can I say.  To me, it's a really ugly section of audio inserted into a lovely film.  I think the same point could have been made better, even if they had kept everything the same but the singer.

 

Just my opinion - and I'm not saying your opinion is wrong by any means, ToxicUnicorn -- but if you mean that Paul Henreid was strident in singing La Marseillaise, I can't help wondering whether that was the intent of Michael Curtiz.   That still doesn't mean you have to like it. 

 

However - Casablanca has been cited numerous times as a propaganda film, albeit an excellent one. Not to revisit high school history that we all kind of forgot, but the US was very resistant to enter WWII despite the hardships and atrocities being suffered by our European allies. Henreid's Victor Laszlo sang the song forcefully because he was convinced he was in the right in opposing Nazi Germany and was determined to overpower the Nazis singing their song; and the movie makers (Curtiz as Director, perhaps Jack Warner and Hal B  Wallis as Producers) may have wanted him to sing forcefully in order to convince Americans that joining the Allied forces in all-out fighting was the right thing to do.  

 

The way La Marseillaise was sung in the film may be a symbolic transition from the US's shift (or the film makers' wish for one) from hanging in the shadows, assisting the Allied powers via the Lend Lease Act but not participating full-on in the war -- participating in WWII, but in a muted way, so to speak -- to full-on, balls to the wall participation in bringing down Nazi Germany.  In addition, Rick, who has previously made ti clear he wants no politics in his cafe, okays Laszlo's singing and leading the band in the French anthem; if we see Rick as a metaphor for the USA (because he's the American proprietor of Rick's Cafe Americain), the country has just thrown in with the Allied powers in fighting Hitler. 

 

Just my interpretation of why Paul Henreid may have sung La Marseilles the way he did, and nothing more.   

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Meet The Parents: Cut all the stupid male nurse jokes. There are plenty of male nurses in the field, so my mom and I never got how and why that running gag was supposed to be funny.

And while you're at it Teri Polo's character left a lot to be desired. Why couldn't she have acted like a grown woman instead of a spineless daddy's girl that didn't bother to mention to her boyfriend that she had been ENGAGED before?

  • Love 5
Link to comment

I just watched Get On Up and for the first half thought it was a decent movie mostly because I thought Chadwick Boseman did a great job. But in the second half all I could think of was that the movie was too damn long and it caused it to drag as a result. Even CB couldn't save it for me. Could've been under two hours.

And speaking of that, there was NO way in hell The Wolf of Wall Street needed to be three hours long. None. Especially with such a horrible group of people. I ended up hating the movie so much more because of that and I was actually enjoying it at first.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

If Scream 4 had gone with the ending it had set up, I think it might have ended up as more than just a footnote with mediocre box office.

You mean with

Emma Roberts getting away with all the murders

? Yeah would have been a cool ending...

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I liked the movie Starman, but I just can't get over the fact that he takes the form of Karen Allen's dead husband. What makes the movie even creepier is that her husband hasn't been gone that long; she's still grieving at the beginning of the movie, but by the end of the movie she's totally in love with the alien that looks like her dead husband. May I add that it's only 3 days later?!

I mean, it might have been a little less creepy if her husband had been gone for longer -- maybe five years -- or if the romance with the alien hadn't happened so fast, I wouldn't have been so put off.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a good movie. I just can't help nitpicking.

Link to comment

I wanted to like To Sir, With Love, and I might have (if only for my deep and abiding love for Sidney Poitier), if they hadn't insisted on playing that dreary, clunky, un-hummable theme song over and over. Seriously? The powers that be couldn't have waited until the final scene and the end credits? They had to trot out that song every 20 minutes to the point where, if it were person, we'd wish death upon it? I mean, no offense to Lulu (who's a decent singer), but I was about ready to curse her very name when her big scene finally arrived!

ITA As much as I love that movie and On The Beach; the keep playing Waltzing Matilda constantly, as if we might forget its set in Australia! Great movie, but doesn't Australia have more than one song?

Link to comment

ITA As much as I love that movie and On The Beach; the keep playing Waltzing Matilda constantly, as if we might forget its set in Australia! Great movie, but doesn't Australia have more than one song?

We have plenty, but most of them are terrible. Old traditional songs are mostly bad anyway.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Most fifties movies would be better if they had replaced the ubiquitous boy child actors they used for most of them, it's a type used over and over again. A sort of Alfred E Newman toddler, hard to describe. A perfect example is the kid used in " The man who knew too much"

Just about the only boy child actor I liked from that era was the kid with the bullhorn voice used in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes".

Edited by caracas1914
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Most fifties movies would be better if they had replaced the ubiquitous boy child actors they used for most of them, it's a type used over and over again. A sort of Alfred E Newman toddler, hard to describe. A perfect example is the kid used in " The man who knew too much"

 

That was Christopher Olsen.  His sister is Susan Olson, from The Brady Bunch.

Link to comment

I know! Their older brother Larry Olsen starred in a Hal Roach comedy "Curly" in the 40's which was basically a reimagination of Our Gang aka the Little Rascals.

That Olsen family was a show Biz factory churning out child actors for decades.

Edited by caracas1914
Link to comment

The Pop (ex-TV Guide) channel is running the 1995 Sandra Bullock movie The Net (where she plays a computer systems analyst whose life gets royally screwed with by cyberterrorists--the Praetorians--when a colleague of hers passes along a floppy disc, for her analysis, on which the terrorists have loaded a program with which the terrorists can control/manipulate pretty much any computer network in the US if not the world) off & on this week, including last night.

It's another movie I like to try to catch when it's on TV, despite a couple of things about it (though not as many as with High Crimes) that crossed my mind while I watched it for the zillionth time last night.

I get that the cyberterrorists--I think, anyway--probably had some sort of "tracker" built into the program, or on the floppy disc, & that's how they knew the 1st guy sent it to Bullock's character & how they knew all about her once she got the disc & they knew about all her friends/family who she was trying to get help from, so they could eliminate them & just make her look like a crazy person. But there was a point where the disc (the only copy of the disc, at least until later in the movie) was ruined by being out in the sun for a protracted period, & the Praetorians were still able to track her movements after that, even when she wasn't on any of the computers on which she'd worked with the disc--which I also figure had the tracker from the disc implanted in them like a virus would be. So that's now bothering me.

It's also bothering me how she managed to get all her stuff from her house, which the Praetorians cleaned out & put up for sale once they started messing with her, back from wherever they had it stored when she didn't know where that was to go get it. I guess she called around to all the storage places until she found it (then she would've had to explain why she looked nothing like the woman using her name who [helped] put the stuff in storage when she went to retrieve it/they delivered it back to her house). At the end of the movie, she had her house back (easy enough, she had the keys among other things) & everything in it we saw before she was messed with (maybe trickier to fix).

Link to comment

The Net is ridiculous, because once she stops the bad guys, somehow all of the bad things that their virus did get miraculously reverted, without thousands of IT people going in to fix things.

It was on Pop again last night, & I watched it again (nothing else interesting on). The Praetorians (cyberterrorists) even knew stuff about her *before* she had the virus/program disc (& so before they should've had reason to be watching her, as near as I can figure).

The guy working with/for the Praetorians who's supposed to gain her confidence, get the disc back, then kill her because of what she knows (only he apparently falls for her & can never follow through with actually killing her, just making threats against her & threatening/killing her friends/family) quotes something she said, about the kind of guy she's supposedly looking for, in an online chat room it seems like before they should know she has/was sent the disc, the 1st time he tries to kill her & can't.

As for what you replied, at 1 point she said the Praetorians' program had a "back door". I don't remember, admittedly, a lot of terminology that deals with malicious computer stuff, but I thought that meant they could go in a system, mess with it, then once they stop messing with it & leave it's like nothing was done to it (so no need for IT guys to fix things). I dunno (shrugs).

Link to comment

It's Alien 3. It took the gorgeous first two films (and their hard-won, deserved happy endings for Ripley) and shit all over them, and did so in the cruelest possible way. It took me three tries just to get through it, and even then, I hated everything but the acting (even the direction was simply early Fincher showing off way too gaudily -- too many shadows and slow-mo fan blades, etc.). 

 

I simply do not acknowledge Alien 3 at all, ever.

 

Same here. If I were Ripley, I would have blown my brains out. Back to a third nightmare without a break. I love the Aliens franchise and wish they would go back and make a sequel with both Newt and that guy Hicks (Ripley's future boyfriend) still alive. Why kill them off in the first place even if the actors were not available?

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I don't know if this is the right thread to vent about this, because I really liked Catching Fire... but I hate what they did with the final "wham line". 

 

 

In the book, the line is simply "There is no District 12." Simple, direct, its impact is all the greater because the realization creeps up on you. But in the movie? The screenwriters apparently thought we were a bunch of slack-jawed, drooling morons who couldn't figure out what the line meant, so they have Gale elaborate by adding, "it's all gone". Golly gee, thanks for clarifying! I thought that when he said "there is no District 12", that he meant it never existed and that this was an episode of The Twilight Zone!

 

Dammit, screenwriters, give us some credit! We're not that stupid!

  • Love 1
Link to comment

 

For me, as one who hadn't read the books but loved the LOTR films, I really appreciated the theme of friendship in the trilogy.  That's not there with the Hobbit. Beyond the fantastical realm of the world itself, I feel that's partly why those films work, and the Hobbit films don't.  Frankly, I'm not that invested in what happens to the dwarves - never have been.

I agree, in both the LOTR's books and movies their friendship really shows. You care about the characters and what happens to them. They also clearly care about each other.

 

Where as I remember when I read the Hobbit, I honestly couldn't keep the dwarves straight. They all seemed the same to me and I frankly didn't care about them. I only saw the first Hobbit movie and it was okay. But again I really didn't care that much and never saw the sequels.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

You could probably do the Hobbit with three or four Dwarves. Thorin the leader, Balin the advisor, Fili to a lot of the running around, maybe Bombour for the fat jokes. I've read the book a dozen times, I could never tell you what, say, Oin does to separate him from Nori. There's some potentially interesting stuff with them being from three different lineages, but that never actually played a part in the story. There's no sign of Dwarven internal politics.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...