PDA

View Full Version : Stupid stupid stuff in an otherwise okay movie


Homer
08-22-2000, 03:00 AM
The Beach was acceptable. But that video game running moment, and the slow telescope walking. Ugh!! I can still see the cheesy smile, and the mechanically moving arms as he ran around in the video. Blech.

--Tim

nevermore
08-22-2000, 04:05 AM
Well, if you'll settle for an ALMOST otherwise okay movie...

Wild Things. The scene where hot bitch is describing so-and-so raping her. She describes it all (very convincingly, I might add *stifling a guffaw*) and then says:

He raped me. He raped me on the floor of his shitty house!

like it would've been OK, if it was on a nice marble floor or a Persian rug, in a cozy little beach villa!!

dylan_73
08-22-2000, 10:46 AM
The reason for The Matrix (humans as power supply).

Hunsecker
08-22-2000, 11:30 AM
The bookends in Saving Private Ryan are the worst thing ever. As if we wouldn't care about the characters unless we see one as a crying old guy.

And on that theme, let me add:
The end of Schindlers List
The end of A League of Their Own

Fretful Porpentine
08-22-2000, 12:57 PM
Well, I liked Four Weddings and a Funeral, except for the parts with Hugh Grant and Andie McDowell...

Joe_Cool
08-22-2000, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Fretful Porpentine
Well, I liked Four Weddings and a Funeral, except for the parts with Hugh Grant and Andie McDowell...

Hollow Man: The 2nd half of the movie, where it turns from a fair sci-fi flick into a crappy monster movie.

Event Horizon: The 2nd half of the movie, where it turns from an intriguing and interesting sci-fi flick into a crappy monster movie.

Lizard
08-22-2000, 01:35 PM
I really liked Starship Troopers, except for the acting. And the dialogue. And the plot. Otherwise, it was great!


In Sling Blade Billy Bob Thornton's characters seems to think the local gay guy would make a good father figure for the kid. Maybe he would, but not in that town!

When Michael Douglas' character lets Sharon Stone's character tie him up in Basic Instinct. Yeah, that was intelligent. :rolleyes:

SaxFace
08-22-2000, 01:37 PM
I liked the Matrix up until they started smooching. What a downer and a terrible groaner.

voguevixen
08-22-2000, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Hunsecker
The bookends in Saving Private Ryan are the worst thing ever. As if we wouldn't care about the characters unless we see one as a crying old guy.



And on that theme let ME add...
The bookends of "The Green Mile." Took a perfectly good movie and made it useless feel-good pap. (So that's three then for Tom Hanks? What's his deal anyway?)

And Joe Cool...you are RIGHT ON about "Event Horizon." That was the one thing you didn't want, expect or even NEED with a cast like that. :mad:

Jester
08-22-2000, 02:40 PM
Well, I'm not saying Entrapment was a good movie, by any means, but the ending was the most annoying thing I've ever had to watch. If I see just ONE more person dissapear behind a train, I'm gonna go postal.

Ivar
08-22-2000, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by SaxFace
I liked the Matrix up until they started smooching. What a downer and a terrible groaner.

I agree wholeheartedly! What was that all about? It was stupid and thrown in for no reason whatsoever. It was a perfectly fine bit of rainyday entertainment until they screwed it up with that scene!

CandyMan
08-22-2000, 02:58 PM
Said it before.... Willy Wonka, except for the bit where his mom sings.

pldennison
08-22-2000, 03:32 PM
And on that theme let ME add...
The bookends of "The Green Mile." Took a perfectly good movie and made it useless feel-good pap.

"Feel-good pap"? Wait, wait . . . you mean the part where he has to watch his female friend at the old-folks home die (just like he had to watch his wife and son die), then he lays in bed each night wondering when he will get to die, and he feels his prolonged life and his suffering through the death of everyone he knows is God's punishment on him for allowing an innocent to be executed? That "feel-good pap"? Yeah, that's a real upper.

jab1
08-22-2000, 03:51 PM
Chris Tucker's performance in The Fifth Element. Someone tell me what was Luc Bresson thinking?!?!?!

Gregor Samsa
08-22-2000, 04:15 PM
I thought The Blair Witch Project was an okay movie (not a great one), but there were a couple of things that really irritated me about it (besides the character Heather).

1) You must have noticed which direction the stream was flowing when you walked into the bush. Once you find the stream, FOLLOW IT. How hard is that? Keep the stream in sight at all times, and FOLLOW IT.

2) When you're camping and you hear a threatening beast outside your tent, pretty much the worst thing you can do is to run full-pelt through the pitch-black forest. You're either going to run into the beast, or into a tree and knock yourself out cold, or you're going to take some branches across the eyes. Any way you slice it, you're worse off than if you had just stayed in the damned tent.

gigi
08-22-2000, 04:17 PM
The stupid stupid idea of putting Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado About Nothing".

Ptahlis
08-22-2000, 05:20 PM
An okay action flick with nifty effects, Independance Day really crapped all over itself with the stupid virus ploy.

The Phantom Menace elicited an audible groan from the audience when Anakin's "virgin birth" was revealed. (I was one of the many who was privileged to be disappointed by this movie on opening day.)

Just about any horror movie when, after half of the protagonists are horribly slain the remaining few develop the "You go that way, I'll go this way!" plan.

EnochF
08-22-2000, 05:33 PM
Has anybody seen Witness for the Prosecution (1957)? It's a pretty cool murder mystery with a neat script based on an Agatha Christie novel, a cool lawyer character played by Charles Laughton, good direction by Billy Wilder, and a genuinely surprising Alfred Hitchcock Presents-style ending. It also stars Marlene Dietrich, who's very good as the unsympathetic German wife of the apparently innocent Defendant. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the way through this otherwise great movie, there's a scene where the lawyer meets with an "anonymous" informant, who is obviously... oh so very painfully obviously... Marlene Dietrich trying to pull off a Cockney accent. Folks, she can't do it. And later she "reveals" that she was the informant and lapses into the accent again. Poor Charles Laughton has to act surprised... (Don't worry. I still haven't given away the surprise ending, for those of you who still want to see it. It's a good film, really, but just be prepared for that one terrible scene.)

sliv
08-22-2000, 05:38 PM
Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Appalling. He's made up in yellow-face with buckteeth and glasses. It's so awful your mind almost can't accept what you're seeing. Really pulls down an otherwise excellent film.

Jar Jar Binks and the "virgin birth" from the Phantom Menace were also amazing missteps. Just dumb. What was Lucas thinking?

I also have to agree with the casting of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing. And the casting of Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Spoke
08-22-2000, 05:56 PM
Ducky not getting the girl in Pretty in Pink. (I think it was originally scripted for the Duckman to get the girl, then it was changed to keep the movie from being a perceived as an endorsement of class warfare.)

teela brown
08-22-2000, 06:18 PM
Night of the Hunter was a spectacularly haunting film, but it sure laid a couple of eggs. Namely, Peter Graves and Shelley Winters. Whatta couple of goofy roles! And that phony repetitive scream that Bob Mitchum supposedly gives out when Lillian Gish shoots him in the ass is just plain silly. Still, this is an ass-kicker of a film, and Charles Laughton's only directing job.

bup
08-22-2000, 06:21 PM
The scandal in "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" doesn't make
any sense. Either the dam project would pay more for the
land, or the boy scouts (whatever they were called in the
movie) would. Jimmy Stewart just had to point out that
the land was being sold to the less-profitable party.

"Field of Dreams" except for the line, "I never saw my
dad so young - only after he had been worn down by time."
Yecch.

pepperlandgirl
08-22-2000, 06:43 PM
And on that theme let ME add...
The bookends of "The Green Mile." Took a perfectly good movie and made it useless feel-good
pap. (So that's three then for Tom Hanks? What's his deal anyway?)
Uh, Sweetie? Did you read the book? I don't know if you noticed this or not, but the screenplay writer tried to keep it as true to the book as possible, and that's what happened in the book.
That, and what Phil said.

Cervaise
08-22-2000, 07:03 PM
Big agreement on the Saving Private Ryan bookends. First time I saw the movie, they didn't bother me so much, because the rest of the film hit me so viscerally. Second time through, when I knew what was coming, the second bookend was like a fistful of shit on the forehead of the Mona Lisa. Totally irritating.

A few more:

Albert Brooks makes great movies, but almost to a one they have sucky endings. His most recent film The Muse had a pretty major misfire in the last five minutes, and his previous film Mother, after over an hour of pitch-perfect emotional satire, screwed the pooch so bad at the end I jumped off the couch and screamed at the TV (scaring my wife in the process).

I thought the recent Titan A.E. was pretty cool all around, except for the small detail of the storyline. Kind of a big hurdle to overcome, but the movie's still neat to look at.

Kenneth Branagh's Dead Again is an extremely fantastic movie, but is marred by two things: one, a rather amateurish bit of camerawork towards the end of the opening dream sequence, and a totally unnecessary gag reaction by Wayne Knight right after the bad guy buys it.

Mystery Men would have been a much more entertaining movie if the director had laid off the distracting wide-angle lens.

Pleasantville is great too, but the choice to take the climax into a courtroom was a pretty major misstep from which the movie almost doesn't recover.

Ronin is a lean, mean, very efficient spy thriller with two big problems: First, the tacked-on "romance" between Robert De Niro and Natasha McElhone (sp?), and the equally tacked-on coda where Jean Reno explains the theme of the film to anyone in the audience whose IQ hovers just below room temperature.

Eyes Wide Shut minus the digital blobs. Nuff said.

I mentioned this in another thread, but Miracle Mile would go from a good movie to a great one if they had handled the whole thing with the character played by Denise Crosby ("Tasha Yar" on Star Trek) differently.

The Insider would have worked better if the Unabomber bit had been better integrated into the main story, instead of sticking out to the side as an unconnected dead end.

That's enough for now. More as I think of them...

PaperBlob
08-22-2000, 09:08 PM
Any scene with the assistant chief of police in Die Hard - I wince whenever I see those. Except for one line: "Guess we're gonna need some new FBI guys."

Junior Spaceman
08-22-2000, 09:19 PM
A film I just saw a couple of days ago - Frequency. This has some really cool ideas, even though it brings the far superior Back to the Future to mind at times. My advice if you see it - leave the cinema (or turn off the video) two minutes before the credits roll - it's one of the most disgracefully manipulative pieces of fluff I've ever seen on a non-Disney Christmas movie (soppy song over slow motion 'growing up' footage). You'll know it when you hit it - it's the point you'll suddenly feel the urge to run to the bathroom.

HenrySpencer.

DennisKy
08-22-2000, 10:03 PM
My personal un-favorite is The Shawshank Redemption, regardless of what my sister thinks of it. Actually, I liked it very much right up until the most necessary moment, when we learn Tim Robbins has been digging a tunnel behind his poster of Rita Hayworth/Marilyn Monroe/Racquel Welch for the last twenty freaking years!.

I don't know how many of you have ever worked in a prison (I worked in a large county jail, once), but the idea that a prisoner would be incarcerated underground, without being moved from the same cell, for such a long period was just too ludicrous to stand. As well as the idea that the head bull, in tossing the cell over all those years, would never ever have torn the poster from the wall to reveal the man-sized hole behind it. It's been a while since I've last seen it (despite TNT running it to death lately), but even if Robbins' character persuaded the warden to let him keep the cell over that length of time as a perk for skillfully cooking the prison books, this is too preposterous to swallow, and ruined my appreciation of the rest.

Guinastasia
08-22-2000, 10:39 PM
Ever read the original Shawshank? It's by Stephen King, believe it or not, and the original title was Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. It's in the collection Different Seasons, and it's great.

Okay on topic:
Flashdance: she does a cute little dance and gets into the Pittsburgh Ballet school? Um, hello, in what century? I believe the Pittsburgh Ballet school is one of the top ten schools of dance in the country. (I live in Pittsburgh). And you can't just audition for a ballet school-you have to start dance when you are very young, and the girl in the movie was 18. By that time, she should've been a professional. I would think she'd be too old to be accepted.

JDeMobray
08-22-2000, 10:44 PM
While it isn't really a movie (I'm sure that there's a movie that I've seen that qualifies for this list, my brain is just completely frozen right now), have any of you ever seen Rent? Great musical, brilliant story, amazing songs. . . . .and the single most obviously tacked on ending in human history.

It reminds me of one P.D.Q. Bach Opera where 'the producer's of the day decided that only happy endings were good for the people and so at the last moment everyone is miraculously ressurected.' *BLECH*

RealityChuck
08-22-2000, 10:53 PM
You're absolutely right about Rent. The ending is stupid and cheap. It reminded me of the Romeo and Juliet parody in Nicholas Nickerby.

What I get annoyed at is the "you're too dumb to figure things out, so we'll give everything away" voiceovers at the beginning of films. The Dark Crystal and Dark City are best viewed with the sound turned off for the first three minutes.

I think Alfred Hitchcock is one of the greatest, but the shot of the strangled woman in Frenzy -- complete with blaring music -- really stinks, especially after the brilliant track down the staircase a few minutes earlier.

JoeyHemlock
08-22-2000, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by DennisKy
...but the idea that a prisoner would be incarcerated underground, without being moved from the same cell, for such a long period was just too ludicrous to stand

I think this is a case of your previous work experience tainting your view. I never thought of this (though it makes sense). As an engineer, I have similar problems when movies take short-cuts or just get things wrong, but I've learned just to remember it's fiction and move on.

Clark K
08-23-2000, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Hunsecker
The bookends in Saving Private Ryan are the worst thing ever. ...
And on that theme, let me add:
The end of Schindlers List
The end of A League of Their Own


I always thought the end of League of Their Own really added a little emotional heft to what had been a good but lightweight comedy. Sentimental, yes, but effective.

Schindler's List would have been a great movie even without the end scene, but I don't object to the ending. In fact, I think it gives the viewer a chance to "decompress" after the movie's emotional punch and also puts the events into context.

For a pleasant movie gone wrong, check out Space Cowboys. Nothing that takes place in orbit makes a lick of sense.

capacitor
08-23-2000, 02:27 AM
In Independence Day, the Internet, which was designed for such a situation the Earth was in, wasn't used, until the virus transfer part (The advanced aliens have no firewalls? My home PC does!!)

Homer
08-23-2000, 02:47 AM
Well he's bound to have more latitude as an inmate seeing as how he's making the Warden hundreds of thousands of bucks.

But as for the cell, he's not underground. He's on the second floor. When he gets to the maintenance area between cell blocks, if you notice, he climbs DOWN onto the shit pipe.

Perhaps this thread should have a spoiler warning?

--Tim

DRY
08-23-2000, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by PaperBlob
Any scene with the assistant chief of police in Die Hard - I wince whenever I see those. Except for one line: "Guess we're gonna need some new FBI guys."

I didn't hate the assistant police chief ("Dwayne") quite as much as you did. I also liked that line where he's told that the FBI is here and Reginald Veljohnson's character asks him: "You want a breath mint?" :D

Bad Hat
08-23-2000, 04:56 AM
Going back to that "Pretty In Pink" ending... I gotta agree with that one, and also, did anybody notice that in John Hughes' "Some Kind Of Wonderful" (which was basically just "pretty in pink" but gender reversed and kinda boring) the ending was: poor girl and pooor guy get together and decide rich love interest was actually a snot and that the poor friend was actually the REAL soul mate all along? Mixed messages from Mr. Hughes?

also: Alec Guiness (R.I.P.) in Lawrence of Arabia, he's usually great but that was basically blackface. Kinda embarrassing to watch now.

Francis McDormand having lunch with the Asian Guy in Fargo... huh?

betenoir
08-23-2000, 04:58 AM
"Magnolia" - the part where the whole cast sings.

Some people think it's one of the high points of the film.
Other people, of course, don't like the movie at all.
Me, I love the movie (everybody go rent it right now) but I hated the stupid MTV moment.

I just saw "The Third Man" last night. Billiant. Classic. But what's with the music?

KJ
08-23-2000, 05:04 AM
The other day I saw the movie The Cell, which just came out on Friday. FWIW, I recommend seeing the movie. It rocks. It might even become my favorite movie, now that I think of it...

Near the end of the movie, one of the characters must find a way to break a glass wall. There is water on the other side, so theoretically, if you broke the glass, the pressure from the water would instantly crash through the glass (I won't reveal anything else about the situation, because that would kind of spoil some of it.) He has a gun, so he shoots the glass 3 or 4 times. When that doesn't work, he picks up a pipe off the floor and smashes through the glass with it.

Now, I'm no scientist, but unless it was a really f**king heavy pipe, wouldn't you assume that a BULLET would have more force, in a more concentrated area, than the pipe?

(Note: This happens in real life, not inside anyone's mind. I'm pretty sure I'm not spoiling anything by that statement that isn't in the commercials.)

Other than that minor detail (which may actually even be right, I wouldn't know for sure) the movie was fantastic, and I recommend it.

Rosebud
08-23-2000, 08:33 AM
Anakin's virgin birth and Keanu in Much Ado get my vote as well. Gotta add Labyrinth, too. I'm a sucker for fantasy movies. First time I saw it I was 14 and I loved it unreservedly. Then, almost 15 years later, I order it on DVD and sit down to watch it with my boyfriend, only to realize that:

a) Jennifer what'shername can't act her way out of a wet paper bag (or couldn't at the time-- I don't think I've seen anything else she's done).
b) Just because David Bowie's in a movie doesn't mean he should sing.

I still like the movie a lot, though. The ball scene is so wonderfully surreal, and hits on themes (like the Goblin King's desire to seduce the girl) that get glossed over in the rest of the film.

Poysyn
08-23-2000, 09:37 AM
Hijack -

Rosebud - I find the book The Labyrinth to cover it much better, but of course most books do cover the material better.

hawthorne
08-23-2000, 10:08 AM
(betenoir)
I just saw "The Third Man" last night. Brilliant. Classic. But what's with the music?
My favorite film. I think the zither music works. It is jarring, but that's the point: the main character (and most of the Americans) in the film don't know what they are doing, the English are useless, the Russians are plotting and the French don't care. The evil of the Nazis has gone, but evil remains in Vienna and Cotton's character - whilst decent - has no idea what to do. With his cheap Western-novel world-view he is morally at sea in a post-war world which is jauntily proceeding with his involvement but without his understanding. [pointy head off]

picmr

Outrider
08-23-2000, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Bad Hat
Francis McDormand having lunch with the Asian Guy in Fargo... huh?

This is probably one of my favorite scenes in the whole movie. I recently saw Rogert Ebert talking to Martin Scorcese about it on his show, and they both thought that this scene was brilliant.

If you think about it, the conversation is the turning point of the movie. Frances McDormand buys the guy's sob story, but later finds out from a friend that it was all bullshit. This revelation prompts her to be more skeptical of information that is given to her, and leads her to question William H. Macy for the second time, which eventually brings about his arrest.

If the conversation with the Asian guy had not happened, chances are that William H. Macy's character would have been able to dodge the law.

Also, it's just a funny scene :)

Crunchy Frog
08-23-2000, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Hunsecker
The bookends in Saving Private Ryan are the worst thing ever. As if we wouldn't care about the characters unless we see one as a crying old guy.

Also, no one has mentioned that the old guy is Private Ryan. From the beginning, it looks like he's having a flashback, and that it's supposed to be Tom Hanks, but at the end, it's Matt Damon - he wasn't even there through most of the film! And then, here's this old guy freaking out, asking his wife if he's a good man? WTF is she gonna say to that? Standing around all those graves, husband breaking down asking "Am I a good man?" She's gonna say what, "Well honey, there was that time . . . " The ending was too sappy and sentimental for me and marred an otherwise excellent film.

Darqangelle
08-23-2000, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by RealityChuck
What I get annoyed at is the "you're too dumb to figure things out, so we'll give everything away" voiceovers at the beginning of films.

This is exactly why I liked the Director's cut of Bladerunner over the screen version.

Revtim
08-23-2000, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by sliv
I also have to agree with the casting of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing. And the casting of Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

And I would add the casting of Reeves in any speaking part whatsoever in anything above the level of "Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure".

BoBettie
08-23-2000, 12:15 PM
Like in Sleepy Hollow (which wasn't that great, but hey). They had to explain the entire movie at the end, including flashbacks just in case you were too dumb to figure it out. I hate that!!

Fiver
08-23-2000, 12:24 PM
Raiders of the Lost Ark: We're given to believe that Indy is able to ride the back of a U-Boat all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the island of Malta, without the sub ever submerging (during a secret mission) and drowning him, and without any Germans in the conning tower seeing him.

The Magnificent Ambersons: The tacked-on "penitent" ending, which Welles had nothing to do with.

Back to the Future: The crypto-racist scene where Marvin Berry calls his cousin Chuck. "Isn't it great that white kid went back in time so the black folks could have their music?"

Outrider
08-23-2000, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Zette
Like in Sleepy Hollow (which wasn't that great, but hey). They had to explain the entire movie at the end, including flashbacks just in case you were too dumb to figure it out. I hate that!!

OK, everyone chill out. Narration and flashbacks are not inherently bad. They are only bad when they are abused by incompetent filmmakers. If you want to see excellent examples of narration and/or flashbacks, just look at:

1. The Shawshank Redemption
2. The Sixth Sense
3. The Usual Suspects
4. Fight Club
5. American Beauty

RealityChuck
08-23-2000, 01:56 PM
There's nothing wrong with narration. What I object to is narration that gives away the story and is tacked on under the assumption that the audience is unable to think.

Crunchy Frog
08-23-2000, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Five
Back to the Future: The crypto-racist scene where Marvin Berry calls his cousin Chuck. "Isn't it great that white kid went back in time so the black folks could have their music?"

I think you're reading a little too much into that, Five. It was just a joke that Chuck Berry would be inspired by his own song. It's not as if Berry started Rock n Roll or anything.

EnochF
08-23-2000, 03:01 PM
For what it's worth, Chuck Berry seems genuinely amused by the time travel concept of being inspired by his own creations. There's also a Quantum Leap episode called "Good Morning, Peoria," where Sam Beckett teaches him The Twist. Go figure.

divemaster
08-23-2000, 03:06 PM
Anatomy of a Murder was a very good film, but I cringe at the scene in the courtroom where the judge admonishes the spectators not to react to certain aspects of the case; for example, the word "panties." Preminger at this point inserts gales of laughter (badly edited at that) which spoils the whole mood.

I so agree with Chris Tucker in The Fifth Element. What a detraction!

Not that White Men Can't Jump was a "good" movie, but the whole basketball scam motif was entertaining. However, the Rosie Perez/Jeopardy! subplot was ridiculous. Better to have left that whole thing on the cutting room floor.

JoeyHemlock
08-23-2000, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by RealityChuck
What I object to is narration that gives away the story and is tacked on under the assumption that the audience is unable to think.

Sccoby-Doo Syndrome: "So Mr. Elkins was the ghost all along?" It's true, however, that a lot of the movie-going public is dumb-as-doorposts, so you have to coddle them.

Outrider
08-23-2000, 03:44 PM
Now that several people have complained about "Scooby Doo," let me bring up the Sixth Sense. Do you think Sixth Sense has a "Scooby Doo" ending? Would the movie have been better if it had ended with Malcom and Cole's last conversation?

I wasn't sure at first, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of leaving Malcom's true identity a secret and letting bright viewers figure it out for themselves. After all, do we want to see a version of Blade Runner where we learn Deckard is a replicant at the end? Of course not. You can enjoy Sixth Sense and Blade Runner without knowing the true identity of the main characters, but the knowledge certainly adds an extra dimension of interest to the story.

JosephFinn
08-23-2000, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by EnochF
For what it's worth, Chuck Berry seems genuinely amused by the time travel concept of being inspired by his own creations. There's also a Quantum Leap episode called "Good Morning, Peoria," where Sam Beckett teaches him The Twist. Go figure.

That would not be Chuck Berry, but Chubby Checkers, who appears as himself in this episode, trying to get the radio station to play his new single, "The Twist."

JoeyHemlock
08-23-2000, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Outrider
Now that several people have complained about "Scooby Doo," let me bring up the Sixth Sense. Do you think Sixth Sense has a "Scooby Doo" ending? Would the movie have been better if it had ended with Malcom and Cole's last conversation?


I thought that the ending was good. Without it, poeple wouldn't have liked it so much. At least they didn't have a voiceover or extraneous conversation SPELLING OUT exactly what the deal was. Kinda like The Usual Suspects. They were both well-done.

Tretiak
08-23-2000, 05:30 PM
I have always thought the way The Truman Show ended was perfectly awful. Truman has found the "edge" of his world and ....what? He makes the "choice" to go outside? That is hardly surprising. What happens then, that's what would be interesting, how does it change the character? It ruined the movie for me.

JosephFinn
08-23-2000, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Tretiak
I have always thought the way The Truman Show ended was perfectly awful. Truman has found the "edge" of his world and ....what? He makes the "choice" to go outside? That is hardly surprising. What happens then, that's what would be interesting, how does it change the character? It ruined the movie for me.

I thought it worked in the sense that the movie is about everybody's voyuerism of Truman. He has escaped it, and now the voyuerism ends. Even for us.

Guinastasia
08-23-2000, 06:20 PM
I recently saw Nell, and while I adored it, the part that bothers me is that they never REALLY explain just HOW the one girl dies...(I'm not going to go into much detail-spoilers, you know?)I wouldn't have known only I read the book based on the screenplay and saw a website about it...

And in Mrs. Brown, the actors hired to play the Prince and Princess of Wales (Bertie and Alix) looked NOTHING like them.
The woman who played Alix especially, as Princess Alexandra was known for her beauty and her charm. She didn't look as plain and frumpy as that woman!

Other than that, both excellent movies!

nevermore
08-23-2000, 06:31 PM
jab1 said:
Chris Tucker's performance in The Fifth Element. Someone tell me what was Luc Bresson thinking?!?!?!
I'll admit that the "Corbin? Corbin? Corbin my man?" was extraordinarily grating, but ya gotta love the scene w/him & the stewardess where he goes, "Girl I swear, I aint neva felt this way befo!" and immediately goes back to munching.

DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE CELL
Re KJ's post--
that part was ridiculous. But my first thought was, if that pipe was laying there, why didn't he use that to begin with??
However I didn't think this was the only stupid part in the movie; in the end they didn't even need the damn woman to find the girl and that sucked. And why did it take the cop seeing that symbol in fantasy world before he figured out to research that? he saw it on the ground at the dude's house!

Derleth
08-23-2000, 06:41 PM
Pleasantville really misses where it could have shined. The whole concept of the establishment of Pleasantville being stable enough to take the matter to court is questionable. The Pleasantville people were obviously scared of the changes, at least the older classes were, and fear leads to anger. I can imagine acts of violent racism before I think of a court trial in that situation. After all, those fighting for the status quo are fighting for their very reality, the only existence they know. Just my opinion.

Silvio
08-24-2000, 05:34 AM
Here are a few more, and remember, we're talking movies that are at least okay, not great, alright? Spoilers ahead...

TITANIC- a movie which many love to hate but that I like pretty well...except for the utterly stupid part where Rose gives up her seat and jumps back on the boat, leading her would be hubby to chase her and young Jack through the boat, pistol blazing. I mean, come on. I'm not a Titanic basher, but that scene was bad.

THE MATRIX- a potentially great movie turned into a good one by way too many shoot-outs and a little too much kung fu. Notice how the good guys had no problem killing cops and security guards by the score, who were just normal guys doing their jobs? And at the end, does everyone just crawl out of their pod, unplug their matrix and feeding tubes and enter the post-atomic desert? Thanks, Neo. I know, wait for the sequals.

GODFATHER III-made stupid by Sofia Copolla's performance

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN- I agree that the tacked on prologue and epilogue were unnecesary. After the attention to detail and realism in the opening battle scene, I was disappointed by the thoughtlessness of other scenes. Why did Tom Hanks try to take that machine gun nest with a frontal charge, instead of sneaking up behind them? Why in the hell didn't they blow up the bridge to begin with, since it was strategically vital only to the Germans, instead of trying to fight for it? Why didn't those German panzers use their machine guns? Each one would have had two or three machine guns designed to prevent infantry from ramming their machine guns into the portals, opening the hatch and tossing in grenades, and basically just charging and beating the hell out of them like in the movie.

JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES- sort of an okay movie, made stupid by a totally unnecessary love interest between one of the vampire slayers and the victim/vampire in training.

Cervaise
08-24-2000, 09:58 AM
Okay, this isn't a movie, but I've already posted a long list of those here and I have to get this off my chest. It's always bugged me to no end that "Star Trek: Next Gen" and "Deep Space Nine" had characters named "Data" and "Quark." It would be like naming modern-day characters "Sandwich" and "Carburetor."

jab1
08-24-2000, 02:07 PM
Thought of another one: The Untouchables was a very good movie, full of great photography, acting, suspense and music and a compelling story.

And then they blew the ending. Oh, it was just like real life... to a point.

In the movie, as in real life, Al Capone is on trial for tax evasion. But he isn't worried because the jury is in his pocket. Unbeknownst to him, however, the judge also knows the jury has been tampered with (or at least suspects it).

The judge therefore dismisses the jury and replaces them with a new one from another case (that had been completed) and they say Capone is guilty without ever hearing the case! No wonder Capone attacks his lawyer. The guy didn't object to it!

(IRL, the new jury did hear the case before convicting Capone.)

Duck Duck Goose
08-24-2000, 04:03 PM
1. I totally agree with whoever it was who named Blair Witch Project. Even my kids, who were at long last allowed to watch it, on video, in the safety of our brightly lit living room, with Mom sitting right there with her finger on the "pause" button (I hadn't seen it yet either), spent more time giggling at their ineptitude than cowering in horror at their fear. Even La Principessa, who is 10, knows that when you're lost in the woods, what you do is sit down and wait, you don't go wandering around in circles.

I had trouble with the fact that they're so totally lost in a state park or something in Maryland. There's no sound of traffic on a highway in the distance? No power lines?

2. After watching Speed for the second time I couldn't help noticing the essential-to-the-plot lack of a deadman switch on the subway car. And the brakes don't work, but the accelerator does? Right. And there just happens to be a crane on the roof of the building? And the bus, when its gas tank is punctured by the screwdriver, starts leaking gasoline instead of diesel? And nobody notices the hole in the garbage can, all afternoon? And Jeff Daniels, the experienced cop hot on the trail of a mad bomber, just walks into the bomber's house without checking for booby traps? Uh-huh.

Oh, well, it was a comic book and you have to accept it on its own terms, I guess.

pldennison
08-24-2000, 04:37 PM
1. I totally agree with whoever it was who named Blair Witch Project. Even my kids, who were at long last allowed to watch it, on video, in the safety of our brightly lit living room, with Mom sitting right there with her finger on the "pause" button (I hadn't seen it yet either), spent more time giggling at their ineptitude than cowering in horror at their fear. Even La Principessa, who is 10, knows that when you're lost in the woods, what you do is sit down and wait, you don't go wandering around in circles.

I had trouble with the fact that they're so totally lost in a state park or something in Maryland. There's no sound of traffic on a highway in the distance? No power lines?

Am I, like, the only one who came to the realization that the witch of the title (you know, the Blair Witch?) had them under, like, a supernatural influence? So, like, the normal orienteering rules didn't apply? Or was I watching some totally unrelated movie, or what?

Falcon
08-24-2000, 04:50 PM
Nope, I got that too, Phil. Well, I got it when I wasn't curled into a tiny ball on the couch.

Also, they weren't in a state park. They were in some random patch of woods, and living here in Maryland, I have NO problems believing they couldn't hear anything.

Cervaise
08-24-2000, 06:35 PM
pldennison: Same here. I saw Blair Witch before all the hype started coming down, and it scared the piss out of me. I imagine if I had watched it later, after its reputation had spread, it wouldn't have worked nearly as well. It's a movie that has to blindside you.

And anyone who complains about the film's realism, saying, "Why didn't they follow the river?" or "Couldn't they have used a compass?" or whatever -- well, whoooosh, y'know, right over the head. That was kind of the point of what was going on. Heather even says it in the film, something to the effect of: "How can you get lost in a little patch of woods in this day and age?" It's clear to me it's the Witch (or whatever) leading them in circles, fooling their senses.

But then the majority of mainstream viewers have been trained, over decades of television and lowbrow moviemaking, not to extrapolate at all on what's going on on-screen. If it isn't explicitly stated or shown, then it just isn't part of the movie for them. Same deal with the reaction to Blade Runner: "Whaddaya mean Deckard might be a replicant? When did they say that?" Or the entirety of Eyes Wide Shut or Magnolia or Thin Red Line or any other semi- or totally allegorical movie. "You mean the whole movie might have been Tom Cruise's dream? And all the soldiers were representative of tiny puzzle pieces in a monolith of metaphorical Soldier-ness? When did they tell us that?" They didn't, not exactly, anyway; it's implied, and you have to put it together for yourself.

I don't hold it against anyone if they didn't "get it" -- it's just a different kind of viewing experience. And like I said, it's the result of decades of dumbing-down of storytelling. Somebody else alluded above to the "turn on the light bulb!" ending of Sixth Sense, and you could say the same thing about the military neighbor's climactic twist in American Beauty or the courtroom scene in Pleasantville or any number of well-regarded mainstream films. They come out and present their themes and ideas directly, explicitly. If that's what you're used to, if that's how you've been trained to watch films, then it's not your fault when other kinds of stuff don't connect. And you probably wouldn't enjoy anything by Ozu, or Bresson, or any other filmmaker who puts the most important material under, instead of on, the surface.

So for a lot of people Blair Witch is about a trio of foul-mouthed twenty-somethings who get lost in the woods, and that's all. That, for the most part, is the story on the surface, and if that's all you see, then I don't blame you at all if you find it boring. If that's all I had seen, I probably would have found it stupid and dull too.

I don't mean to start a debate here; I'm sure the merits of Blair Witch have been hashed out in many threads before this. All I'm pointing to is the meta-issue of how people watch movies, and how, subjectively, where you're looking significantly impacts what you see. Sounds obvious, but it tends to be forgotten in practice.

We now return you to your ongoing thread, already in progress...

HelloKitty
08-24-2000, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Tretiak
I have always thought the way The Truman Show ended was perfectly awful. Truman has found the "edge" of his world and ....what? He makes the "choice" to go outside? That is hardly surprising. What happens then, that's what would be interesting, how does it change the character? It ruined the movie for me.

The Truman Show is one of my favorites of all time. I thought the ending worked because it was a TV show, after all...once Truman left, the show was over, and so was the movie. Made perfect sense to me.

I loved the way Jim Carrey, the ultimate scene hog, had his back to the audience during most important part of his character's life. I'm sure it's not easy for an actor to choose to do that, let alone Jim Carrey!

ENugent
08-24-2000, 07:16 PM
And I would add the casting of Reeves in any speaking part whatsoever in anything above the level of "Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure".

Actually, I thought his portrayal of a high-school derelict in Parenthood was quite well done.

Silvio
08-24-2000, 07:18 PM
I agreee with all the BLAIR WITCH defenders. It's obvious that they SPOILER




ended up in the old house of the child killer, which had been burned down many years before, so the old Blair Witch seems to have the power to move and bend time and space. That's a hell of a confusing thing if you're caught in the middle of it

Tapioca Dextrin
08-24-2000, 07:19 PM
No mention of all those Alfred Hitchcock films? Can't think how much time I wasted just trying to spot some old fat guy.

KJ
08-24-2000, 08:09 PM
SPOILER ALERT: Don't read if you haven't seen The Cell:


I was also kind of disappointed that it wasn't very necessary for her to go into the killer's mind to find the girl. But by the end of the movie, that wasn't the point. Finding the girl became the subplot, and the goal of the woman was really to let the killer rest (by drowning him.)

And, yeah, a real forensicist(Is that the term?) would've looked for information on that Carver logo from the beginning.

END SPOILER SECTION

All in all, though, I thought it was a wonderful movie. The in-mind scenes are exactly the kind of surreal stuff that happens in my dreams.

It's also interesting to think about what's real; they build the sets out of real materials, but they are not the real objects they are trying to be, so they are fake, but to the characters, they are real, but they are really fake, because it's all in their head. Real, fake, real, fake, AHHHHH!!!! Too confusing.

Cervaise
08-24-2000, 08:13 PM
HelloKitty: The Truman Show is one of my favorites of all time. I thought the ending worked because it was a TV show, after all...once Truman left, the show was over, and so was the movie.

Excellent observation, my child. You have done well. ;)

The key to understanding the end is that, throughout the film, whenever we're watching Truman, the movie is the TV show. Peter Weir's genius touch is to shoot Truman at all times as if we're watching the show; we never, ever see Truman except via the same cameras and views by which the on-screen TV audience is seeing him. When we go out into the control room, then we're in normal movie-watching mode, but when we watch Truman, we are in fact watching the TV show within the movie.

The brilliance of the movie, therefore, is in creating a paradoxical dichotomy; we pass judgment on the voyeurism in the film and root for Truman's freedom, even as we simultaneously watch Truman in exactly the same way the movie's TV audience does. Subtle but effective, and very very smart... and given this reality, the ending couldn't have happened any other way.

Guinastasia
08-24-2000, 09:09 PM
I'm another one who liked the Blair Witch, although it didn't scare me. (My sister keeps complaining about how stupid it was-she doesn't get how original it TRULY was, BEFORE the hype that is.)

I love Titanic myself, but...Brock Lovett says that the Heart of the Ocean was worn by Louis the XVI, and that if it were around today it would be worth more than the Hope Diamond....um...the blue diamond worn by the French Kings WAS the Hope diamond! ARGH!

Tretiak
08-24-2000, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Cervaise
HelloKitty: The Truman Show is one of my favorites of all time. I thought the ending worked because it was a TV show, after all...once Truman left, the show was over, and so was the movie.

Excellent observation, my child. You have done well. ;)

The key to understanding the end is that, throughout the film, whenever we're watching Truman, the movie is the TV show. Peter Weir's genius touch is to shoot Truman at all times as if we're watching the show; we never, ever see Truman except via the same cameras and views by which the on-screen TV audience is seeing him. When we go out into the control room, then we're in normal movie-watching mode, but when we watch Truman, we are in fact watching the TV show within the movie.

The brilliance of the movie, therefore, is in creating a paradoxical dichotomy; we pass judgment on the voyeurism in the film and root for Truman's freedom, even as we simultaneously watch Truman in exactly the same way the movie's TV audience does. Subtle but effective, and very very smart... and given this reality, the ending couldn't have happened any other way.

Gregor Samsa
08-25-2000, 08:46 AM
I knew I shouldn't have mentioned The Blair Witch Project.

Ad Noctum
08-25-2000, 08:52 AM
hmm...
I haven't goten freaked out by movies since I saw Fantasia (the Original, mind you) when I was 2, but I got FREAKED when I was watching "Stir of Echoes" but HOW THE HELL DOES A CREEP-ASS MOVIE LIKE THAT HAVE A SAPPY ENDING?!?!?!?!?!

she's singin' and prancin' around, and hot-damn if that is a good ending for the movie!

first time I saw it, I just stared at the screen in disbelief!
I was totally just like, umm... when does the movie start again?

then the second time (at a friend's) I just got up and left at the ending!
anyway, my $0.02

evilbeth
08-27-2000, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Cervaise
But then the majority of mainstream viewers have been trained, over decades of television and lowbrow moviemaking, not to extrapolate at all on what's going on on-screen. If it isn't explicitly stated or shown, then it just isn't part of the movie for them.


Cervaise, you know, I just don't tell you that I love you nearly often enough!

Crunchy Frog
08-27-2000, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by jab1
The Untouchables . . . In the movie, as in real life, Al Capone is on trial for tax evasion. The judge . . . dismisses the jury and replaces them with a new one from another case (that had been completed) and they say Capone is guilty without ever hearing the case!

And what about Elliot Ness killing Frank Nitti? That always bothered me about it. I know it gave the audience some satisfaction watching Malone's killer get thrown off the roof, but IIRC Nitti took over the operation after Capone went to jail.

Lamia
08-27-2000, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by sliv
Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Appalling. He's made up in yellow-face with buckteeth and glasses. It's so awful your mind almost can't accept what you're seeing. Really pulls down an otherwise excellent film.


My sister's mind literally couldn't accept what she was seeing -- she saw "Breakfast at Tiffany's" several times before she realized that the landlord was meant to be Asian. She said, "I thought he just talked funny because he had such bad teeth." The yellowface wasn't too noticeable on our television, which is practically a black and white (it started off as a color TV but is now very old).


I also have to agree with the casting of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing. And the casting of Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula.


Or the casting of Keanu Reeves in anything.

ExTank
08-27-2000, 02:26 PM
I gotta disagree with the Tucker-bashing in The Fifth Element. That movie wasn't meant to be serious sci-fi like Contact or 2001, but rather a semi-whimsical space opera.

Chris Tucker's character was background; admittedly loud and brash, but a bit of the scenery to show the audience what that particular future was supposed to be like.

I rather liked its Heavy Metalesque artwork, goofy special effects and fantastical plot line; I really would have like to hear that diva sing a lot longer than we did. IMO, a nice change of pace from across the ocean.

Luc Besson is one of my favorite directors, and has been since The Professional. I keep my eye out for Jean Reno, and feel he was just about the only saving grace in Godzilla.

And Jean Reno's voice-over in Ronin isn't necessarily for dim-bulbs; my step-dad, a veteran Homicide Detective and as sharp an individual as I've ever met, didn't get Ronin, even after the voice over.

He is just too used to fairly cut-and-dried actions/motives analysis to get into the kind of side-ways logic international intrigue/mercenaries involves (or as it was implied in Ronin).

For me, being a veteran, I object to movies that portray the military as a bunch of mindless automatons; or worse, as mindless sycophants. And considering Hollywierd, that's just about every movie.

The movies that I feel accurately portray servicemembers are Saving Private Ryan, Independence Day, Courage Under Fire, Rules of Engagement, Platoon, The Memphis Belle, A Bridge Too Far, Patton, Three Kings, Dogs of War, Wild Geese,....you get the picture.

Those movies show us as, well, human, with all of the flaws and virtues that implies.

ExTank

APB9999
08-27-2000, 04:31 PM
The Matrix, first for the idiocy of the whole premise: Humans are being kept in an enormous series of vats, living in their minds in a computer-created world. Why? Because their brains act as a power supply for the machines running things (because the sun is blotted out). Yes, of course. The millivolts that occur accross neuron cell membranes is a much more efficient energy source than, say geothermal or tidal sources, or y'know, windmills.

Second, when Keanu "wakes up" to the higher reality than the one he has been living, he pops out of his pod like a veal calf out of a crate, but with absolutely no muscle atrophy or other ill effects.

Finally, not a single character in the whole movie even suggested the obvious: that this new layer of reality was itself also an illusion. It was the ususal conspiracy-psychology appeal of "we know THE TRUTH that is denied to everyone else."

The special effects were okay, though.

I have to disagree with this one, too, sort of:Originally posted by Cervaise
But then the majority of mainstream viewers have been trained, over decades of television and lowbrow moviemaking, not to extrapolate at all on what's going on on-screen. If it isn't explicitly stated or shown, then it just isn't part of the movie for them.

There's something in what you say, but I have had too many conversations with people who extrapolated things from a movie and insisted that they were absolutely right when all they were doing was reading into it and becoming fascinated by their own cleverness. There was a movie called Smoke I went to several years ago with some friends, and three of the central characters had injuries; one was missing an eye, one had a broken arm, and I forget the third one. One of my friends insisted it was highly significant that the injuries were all on the left side - the "sinister" side. This supposed symbolism was hanging out there alone, mind you, and had no support from the rest of the movie that I could see or he could point to. And of course there were only those three injuries altogether. I pointed out that if a director hands an actor a sling and says "here, put this on", and the actor is right handed, as most people are, it's far more likely than not that the sling will end up on the left arm. At any rate, I thought, and still think, that this was just nonsense.
The same for Deckard in Blade Runner. You CAN conclude he was a replicant if you want to, but I've read the book and I own the movie and there is no such implication that is not just as readily explained as referring to the girl. It is NOT clear that the director had this mind, and it is NOT true that people who don't read this conclusion into the movie, or who question those who do, are brain dead zombies who just can't see it because it isn't spelled out.

I posted this in another thread, but it belongs here. I remember trying to contain myself when Elisabeth Shue played a 19 year old (looking, anyway) nuclear physicist who had perfected cold fusion in The Saint (what is this Hollywood fascination with the idea of teenage supermodel physicists?). She gave a "scientific talk" to a lecture hall full of physical scientists that went something like this:
"*GUSH* Golly, rather than a boring old technical talk, let me tell what a paradise the world will be when we all have unlimited energy!*Cute dimply smile* It'll be swell! No more war, hunger, famine, death, plague, debt, or yellow teeth! *Giggle* Gee whiz, adorable children will just be SO happy! Fuzzy animals will litter the sidewalks!....Any questions?"
My date at this movie leaned over and whispered, "you mean like, say, how's it work?"
Nobody on screen had any questions, except of course Val Kilmer, who saw this as a perfect opening to begin seducing the lady.

Of course, that wasn't really an "otherwise okay" movie, so maybe it doesn't count.

vandal
08-27-2000, 05:15 PM
The ending of psycho.

How the psychologist explains Norman's behavior and the reasons for his killings and everything. That just ruined it. The scene where he's in the cell is alright, just the explanation.

ThisYearsGirl
08-27-2000, 07:22 PM
I really hated the end of American Beauty, especially the last line''"If you don't know what I'm talking about, you will someday." It just seemed too cute. Hell, I think the movie would have been a lot better if the ending was just images, not the voice-over at all.
When Cate Blanchet got on the boat at the end of The Talented Mr. Ripley, everyone in the theater groaned. (Actually, the worst part of that movie was the preview. Totally misrepresented the movie)
I always hate it in movies when a phone number starts with 555. It ruins it for em everytime.

Cervaise
08-28-2000, 01:45 PM
evilbeth: Cervaise, you know, I just don't tell you that I love you nearly often enough!

As a matter of fact, I think this would be the first time for you. For anyone on the board, in fact, except for my wife, katrina.

Let's see, how likely is she to read the movie-related threads? Hmmm... :D

Gregor Samsa
08-28-2000, 02:25 PM
One thing that's always bothered me about cop movies is the whole "keep him on the line, we need two minutes to trace the call" idea.

As a private citizen, I can get call display hooked up to my phone that shows me the name and number of who's calling me before I pick up the phone. Am I to believe that the police forces of the world can't set up a system that will show them the name, number and address of who's calling?

Yue Han
08-28-2000, 04:51 PM
Ummm, APB, did you go for popcorn during the scene in the Matrix when Neo has several hours of surgery to repair his atrophied muscles?

At one point he comes to, looks down and sees needles sticking out of his body, and Morpheus tells him he's never used his muscles before so they have to be repaired. Then he falls back asleep and when he wakes up he's normal, albeit bald.

--John

APB9999
08-28-2000, 05:09 PM
Okay, I must have forgotten that part. It's been a while since I saw it.

friedo
08-06-2001, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Outrider

OK, everyone chill out. Narration and flashbacks are not inherently bad. They are only bad when they are abused by incompetent filmmakers. If you want to see excellent examples of narration and/or flashbacks, just look at:

1. The Shawshank Redemption
2. The Sixth Sense
3. The Usual Suspects
4. Fight Club
5. American Beauty [/B]
[/quote]

Allow me to humbly add Forest Gump to that list. I always find it more effective when flashbacks are used as a vehicle for the first two acts, leaving the third act for the future. This worked perfectly in Gump. (And also The Shawshank Redemption, to an extent.) I despised the bookends in both The Green Mile and Saving Private Ryan. Both stories stood fine on their own. Totally pissed me off, that.

Enderw24
08-07-2001, 12:48 AM
friedo, normally I wouldn't bother replying, but curiousity has gotten the better of me here.

You resurrected a year old thread to respond to a poster that stopped posting three months ago regarding a topic that was a hijack of the thread's original purpose. Why?

Atreyu
08-07-2001, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Outrider
If you want to see excellent examples of narration and/or flashbacks, just look at:

1. The Shawshank Redemption
2. The Sixth Sense
3. The Usual Suspects
4. Fight Club
5. American Beauty

I've seen all of these movies. More than once.

The Sixth Sense does not have any narration.

I agree that the narration in the other four were well handled, especially in The Shawshank Redemption (Morgran Freeman has one of my favorite voices to listen to...it's almost like listening to music) and Fight Club.

Atreyu
08-07-2001, 01:33 AM
Sorry, Ender. I'm not trying to encourge the bump. I was just responding to something from the first page that hadn't been corrected.

Kaitlyn
08-07-2001, 07:27 AM
True Grit is a very good movie badly marred by Glen Campbell's performance. And this is a movie with both Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper in it in bit parts.

Any non-singer cast in a singing role in a musical, most notably:

Marlon Brando in Guys and Dolls
Buddy Hackett in The Music Man
Jimmy Stewart in Born to Dance
The entire cast of Paint Your Wagon

Mangetout
08-07-2001, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by gigi
The stupid stupid idea of putting Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado About Nothing".

Wooden, wasn't it?

Enderw24
08-07-2001, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Atreyu
Sorry, Ender. I'm not trying to encourge the bump. I was just responding to something from the first page that hadn't been corrected.

No worries. I'm not waking up at night in a cold sweat wondering why this thread is still in existence. I was just curious as to the reasoning. So knock yourself out.

davesink
08-07-2001, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by vandal
The ending of psycho.

How the psychologist explains Norman's behavior and the reasons for his killings and everything. That just ruined it. The scene where he's in the cell is alright, just the explanation.

Totally agree with this one.

Also,I still love John Balushi's bits in Animal House and overall it's held up pretty well, but the scenes in the bar where the Deltas go to see Otis Day come across as blatantly racist on a recent rescreening:

("What are you studying?"

"Primitive Cultures"

Cut to Otis singing "oo mau mau")

and where the big scary black guys steal the wimpy white guys dates. (cringe :rolleyes: )

TV time
08-07-2001, 05:11 PM
Raymond Burr in Godzilla--I just love trying to figure out how he is going to be worked into the next scene. It is also a great drinking game. See Burr, take a drink.

The nude walking down the hall scene at the end of "Teachers". Other than getting a racier rating, I could see no purpose.

(Going to get some disagreement here) The fight scene between Mel Gibson and Gary Busey at the end of Lethal Weapon. Yes it was a good fight scene, but it had nothing to do with the movie and actually took you away from the movie as a whole.

CrankyAsAnOldMan
08-07-2001, 05:23 PM
I've seen countless movies ruined by the insistence that there be some romance that develops, no matter how improbable, no matter how short the time allowed for it to happen. It's like "Attractive male lead? There must be some attractive female character who throws herself at him at some point in movie"

Not that this was a fantastic movie in every other way, but I just about shrieked in annoyance when the girl kisses Leo Davidson the astronaut at the end of the recently-released Planet of the Apes. What, you're just so overcome, you have to tongue-kiss this guy all of a sudden?

Or the way The Last of the Mohicans changes the love stories from the way the book was written. aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAARgh

obfusciatrist
08-07-2001, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Crunchy Frog
Also, no one has mentioned that the old guy is Private Ryan. From the beginning, it looks like he's having a flashback, and that it's supposed to be Tom Hanks, but at the end, it's Matt Damon - he wasn't even there through most of the film! And then, here's this old guy freaking out, asking his wife if he's a good man? WTF is she gonna say to that? Standing around all those graves, husband breaking down asking "Am I a good man?" She's gonna say what, "Well honey, there was that time . . . " The ending was too sappy and sentimental for me and marred an otherwise excellent film.

Crunchy, have you read William Goldman's (The Princess Bride most notably) essay on this? He says most of the same things and is very forceful about it.

John Bredin
08-07-2001, 06:29 PM
Bad scene in a good movie? I liked "Unbreakable" but:

1) you just DON'T HAVE train accidents where everyone dies! That's two doors down in the "aviation" section. ;)

2) the first sign that the train was going to derail was shaking, making the passengers visibly nervous. WTF?! That very kind of shaking happens a couple of times each time I ride the train to and from work, when the train changes tracks or goes through a switch at speed. And nobody looks around nervously or grabs the armrests like the "Unbreakable" passengers! :rolleyes:

Kaitlyn
08-08-2001, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by John Bredin
Bad scene in a good movie? I liked "Unbreakable" but:

1) you just DON'T HAVE train accidents where everyone dies! That's two doors down in the "aviation" section. ;)


This bothered me, too, until I saw the DVD deleted scenes. One of the scenes has a news report on it that explains the horrendous death toll. After the train derails, the two passenger cars ends up on a parallel track and are then rammed by a freight train going the opposite direction, They are buried and most of the passengers die due to injuries and fire while waiting to be rescued.

By the way, if you rent the DVD, check out the carnival scene in the deleted scenes section. Yeesh! Easily the most unsettling thing on the disc.

Skijumper
08-08-2001, 11:19 AM
Two things came immediately to my mind when I spotted this thread:

1. Ewoks. That. Song. And dance. At the end. WTF?
2. Gwyneth Paltrow. Who has this knack of appearing in movies I would otherwise have enjoyed fully.

Legomancer
08-08-2001, 12:11 PM
No one seems to have mentioned Aliens. This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and I think it's nigh-perfect, but there's one scene that always bugs me. It's the scene when the Colonial Marines are talking about their adventures having sex with alien beings. It's a strange scene and adds nothing and I think detracts from the whole "alien" nature of the "Aliens".

I also don't know any Star Wars fans that don't wince at the "laser brain" line.

jab1
08-08-2001, 08:26 PM
That line never bothered me. What bothered me was Han Solo referring to a parsec as a unit of time.

Tyklfe
08-08-2001, 08:52 PM
The love triangle in Pearl Harbor.

jab1
08-08-2001, 09:08 PM
As soon as the girl said she was pregnant, I knew the father would be killed and his buddy would marry her and raise the kid as one of his own.

Katisha
08-08-2001, 09:38 PM
For the most part, I love Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, but I didn't at all like the handling of the Ghost scene. Branagh goes for a horror-movie effect here, delivering the "Angels and ministers of grace defend us" speech while running through the woods, and shooting the thing with a hand-held camera. Fine. But then we get some cheesy shots of the earth opening up -- shots which are not at all helped by the fact that in them, said earth resembles nothing so much as a brownie with powdered sugar. Mmmmm...brownie...

Brian Blessed plays the Ghost. This is great casting -- and Blessed has the perfect voice for the role. So why are all his lines electronically distorted? Also, he wears these creepy light blue contact lenses, which is fine...except that we see a few flashbacks of Hamlet senior in life, and he's wearing the same contacts there, which is a bit jarring.

Actually, there are a few other missteps in Hamlet -- dropping a chandelier on Claudius at the end was a wee bit excessive, and some of the flashbacks (but not all) could have been left on the cutting-room floor. Particularly the flashback of evil-clown Yorick and a strange, pudgy child with white hair who somehow grew up to be Kenneth Branagh. Oh, and the casting of Robin Williams.

Despite its flaws though, I still love this movie to bits, which goes to show how strong the good parts of it are. (And after a lot of viewings -- believe me, I've watched it many times -- you even start to appreciate the bad ones for their cheesiness... ;))

Munch
08-08-2001, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Atreyu

The Sixth Sense does not have any narration.


I think you missed this part of Outrider's post:

Originally posted by Outrider
If you want to see excellent examples of narration and/or flashbacks [bolding mine]

Miss Creant
08-08-2001, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Hunsecker
The bookends in Saving Private Ryan are the worst thing ever. As if we wouldn't care about the characters unless we see one as a crying old guy.

And on that theme, let me add:
The end of Schindlers List
The end of A League of Their Own

I must disagree on the end of Schindlers list
I don't know if you're Jewish, but I am and the scene everyone laying a stone on Schindler's grave was to me the most moving part of the film

Eliahna
08-09-2001, 12:53 AM
I love Pleasantville, and don't mind the courtroom scene (I like my movies to beat you over the head with their meaning), but I hate the scene where Toby McGuire gets back to his own time, and his mother is crying in the kitchen, and he goes in and comforts her, and she uses the f-word (nasty), and winds up saying "When did you so smart?". It's just such a cheesy scene.

jab1
08-11-2001, 03:35 PM
And how did he explain to his mother what happened to his sister? "Uh, Mom, she's in a TV show and doesn't want to return to the real world..."

Drastic
08-11-2001, 05:51 PM
I was pleasantly surprised on renting the dvd of the King miniseries "Storm of the Century". The multiple scenes that aggravated me, though, was every once in awhile, the demon playing with the town would open his mouth and do a little snarly hiss showing off his nasty sharp pointy vampire teeth. Highly groan-worthy, as it was already made clear, and much more skillfully so, that he was certainly not really human.

AwSnappity
08-11-2001, 06:11 PM
More about The Cell:

The second time (I think) that J.Lo goes into the killer's mind starts out like they are having a power failure and J.Lo needs to get up to check on something in the room. Something happens then (I forgot what), and then we realise that we are in the killer's mind now. However, the killer has been in a coma for a good part of the film, and he has never seen the room. Therefore, it couldn't be in his mind and J.Lo wouldn't have had to check on the power outage.

Crunchy Frog
08-11-2001, 06:26 PM
I recently saw The Gift, which didn't suck, but why bother with the whole main character being psychic? I thought it would have worked much better as a thriller and a mystery if the main character was just faking it instead of really being psychic.

Chez Guevara
08-11-2001, 07:11 PM
Alien. The scene in which John Hurt captures the baby alien by swallowing it is totally unrealistic.

Superman. Clark Kent getting changed in a telephone box. How realistic is that?

Crunchy Frog
08-11-2001, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Schadenfreude
Superman. Clark Kent getting changed in a telephone box. How realistic is that?
Um, dude, it's Superman. It's about a man from another planet that flies and has X-ray vision. How much realism were you expecting?

What ruined Superman for me though was...

***Superman spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen it***






He flies around the planet really really fast a bunch of times and reverses time so he can save Lois Lane? What is that? If he can reverse time, why not go all the back to before getting tricked by Lex Luthor and not getting tricked at all in the first place? He knows Luthor's plan, why not go even further back in time and stop Luthor from ever getting a chance to carry out his plan?

And besides all that, at the fortress of solitude, IIRC, Clark Kent has the whole of human knowledge at his fingertips. What does he do with all this information? He becomes a newspaper reporter! What the hell? This is how he figures he can best serve mankind? Nice move Clark, brilliant. :rolleyes:

Chez Guevara
08-11-2001, 07:46 PM
Pardon my irony.

Crunchy Frog
08-11-2001, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Schadenfreude
Pardon my irony. I am irony impaired. Besides, that was basically just a lead-in for my Superman diatribe. Should've put a winky smiley there I guess.

Myrnalene
08-11-2001, 08:23 PM
Yes, I know the Keanu thing has been beaten to death, but I must humbly submit his "performance" in Dangerous Liasons. This is an excellent movie with some fine, fine actors at the top of the game, but when he is onscreen the movie just STOPS. It's like an old Warner Brothers cartoon I saw once where Elmer Fudd was chasing Bugs Bunny through the woods, and out of nowhere this half-crippled old man (or turtle, or something, fuck, I'm fuzzy on the details, 'kay?) appears, and Bugs and Elmer stop what they're doing and watch in startled horror as he sloooooooooly limps across the screen. God, what an insult to John Malkovich and Glenn Close to have to play opposite this moron!

Lux Fiat
08-12-2001, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by obfusciatrist
Crunchy, have you read William Goldman's (The Princess Bride most notably) essay on this? He says most of the same things and is very forceful about it.I don't know about Crunchy, but I'd love to read this. Do you know where it can be found?

Koxinga
08-12-2001, 08:11 AM
I would have enjoyed Gladiator more in retrospect if I hadn't viewed the outtakes. At least one of the outtakes seemed important to the plot (Oliver Reed telling Maximus that he is an "entertainer"--why else would Maximus be shouting to the crowd in the final version that "I am not an entertainer"!) and one or two that would have really added to Commodus's character development (especially one where he confronts a statue of his father, begins by attacking it with a sword and ends by embracing it and weeping much as he had when he murdered the old guy at the beginning of the movie). I wish that those scenes had been left in.

The Bitterdrunk Kid
08-12-2001, 08:43 AM
Back to the Future: The crypto-racist scene where Marvin Berry calls his cousin Chuck. "Isn't it great that white kid went back in time so the black folks could have their music?" [/B][/QUOTE]

I didn't think that had any thing to do with that. I thought it was just a joke about how Marty was playing a song that wouldn't be recorded for 2(?) more years, and the guy was telling his cousin about this guy's great sound. Black R&B music had already been around since the late 40's and was pretty popular in 1955. Don't take everything so seriously, it'll give you an ulcer! (HA HA!)

lolagranola
08-12-2001, 01:19 PM
I know that the subject is old, but I have a few comments to make on the whole Blair Witch thing. I disagree with several of Cervaise's comments. I thought the movie was much ado about nothing. I don't think that my dislike of it was the result of years of dumbing-down storytelling. In order to believe that they were more than lost, you had to believe in the Blair Witch, and the power of the Blair Witch, and I didn't. I kept coming up with rational explanations for the strange events. There was no suspension of disbelief on my part, which makes the whole movie about a bunch of jerks losing their way in the woods and freaking out. And the whole shaky camera thing made me quite ill. I also thought it was an excellent example of how hype can really build a movie up. Original? Yes, it gets points for that. I did understand the feelings that the movie was trying to invoke, I just didn't experience them. It's not that I couldn't figure out that they were supposed to be led by the Blair Witch, and she was the cause of the odd events. I got that. I just didn't believe it.

I can buy almost any number of things as long as I am caught up in the story. I can excuse mistakes, I can make up my own explanations. This story just didn't capture me on any level.

Legomancer
08-12-2001, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by lolagranola
I know that the subject is old, but I have a few comments to make on the whole Blair Witch thing. I disagree with several of Cervaise's comments. I thought the movie was much ado about nothing. I don't think that my dislike of it was the result of years of dumbing-down storytelling. In order to believe that they were more than lost, you had to believe in the Blair Witch, and the power of the Blair Witch, and I didn't. I kept coming up with rational explanations for the strange events. There was no suspension of disbelief on my part, which makes the whole movie about a bunch of jerks losing their way in the woods and freaking out. And the whole shaky camera thing made me quite ill. I also thought it was an excellent example of how hype can really build a movie up. Original? Yes, it gets points for that. I did understand the feelings that the movie was trying to invoke, I just didn't experience them. It's not that I couldn't figure out that they were supposed to be led by the Blair Witch, and she was the cause of the odd events. I got that. I just didn't believe it.

I can buy almost any number of things as long as I am caught up in the story. I can excuse mistakes, I can make up my own explanations. This story just didn't capture me on any level.

I will second your opinion. For me, the true failure of the film was that I never thought the three idiots would have been able to find their way out of the forest even if they weren't being supernaturally tormented. At no point did any of them seem even remotely competent. The movie hinges on you believing that only supernatural forces could be confusing their progress, and I never believed that.

It makes me furious when people tell me I didn't "get" the Blair Witch Project. Please, it's not as subtle and cerebral as you've been led to believe. It's like the film "Time Code" - a good experiment that used a lousy film to experiment on. I was actually looking forwards to the umpty-jillion BWP rip-offs I assumed the market would be flooded with because I figured eventually someone would use the technique effectively. But the whole fad died off pretty quickly.

HelloKitty
08-12-2001, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Tretiak
I have always thought the way The Truman Show ended was perfectly awful. Truman has found the "edge" of his world and ....what? He makes the "choice" to go outside? That is hardly surprising. What happens then, that's what would be interesting, how does it change the character? It ruined the movie for me.

See, the part I LOVED about that ending was when Truman left his "world" which was really the TV show, it was the end of the show! So that was the end of the movie!

I do agree that it would have been interesting to see Truman in our world, but then again, that wasn't really what the movie was about. It was about Truman (a TRUE MAN) finding himself...not just finding another world or existence. LOVE that movie.

HelloKitty
08-12-2001, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Legomancer
No one seems to have mentioned Aliens. This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and I think it's nigh-perfect, but there's one scene that always bugs me. It's the scene when the Colonial Marines are talking about their adventures having sex with alien beings. It's a strange scene and adds nothing and I think detracts from the whole "alien" nature of the "Aliens".


???!!! Guess I am gonna have to rent this one again...for the life of me I don't remember any lines about alien sex!!

Rossarian
08-12-2001, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Fiver
Raiders of the Lost Ark: We're given to believe that Indy is able to ride the back of a U-Boat all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the island of Malta, without the sub ever submerging (during a secret mission) and drowning him, and without any Germans in the conning tower seeing him.

I used to wonder about this, but at that time, submarines were far more efficient on the surface. They would cruise to wherever they were going and then submerge to attack. They couldn't stay submerged all that long without running out of battery power. So the U-Boat would have stayed on the surface the whole time, especially since this was prior to the war, and thus there was no reason to hide from anyone.

Crunchy Frog
08-12-2001, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by obfusciatrist
Crunchy, have you read William Goldman's (The Princess Bride most notably) essay on this? He says most of the same things and is very forceful about it.
Sorry I didn't respond to your question sooner, but I just saw it today. I read something along the same lines in a magazine a while back, but I can't recall who wrote it. I remember reading it thinking how much I agreed with the assesment of the film and how stupid it was that Captian Miller didn't just order Ryan to go back with them. I remember thinking at the time how stupid it was that it was Ryan having the flashback, but the article really pointed out how overly sentimental the bookends were, something I just found extraneous at the time.

The author also panned Shakespeare in Love in the same article, is that the one you were talking about?

Crunchy Frog
08-12-2001, 05:23 PM
BTW - am I the only person here, upon seeing William Goldman's name, to think of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid first and not The Princess Bride?

Just curious.

Kaitlyn
08-12-2001, 05:29 PM
Crunchy, I certainly think "The Princess Bride" first, but then, I'm the kind of person who tends to think of an artist's best work, like "The Princess Bride", first, and the mediocre dreck--like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"--last.

spacecat
08-12-2001, 05:53 PM
Everything after the first 25 minutes or so of Final Destination. It is at about the 25 minute mark that the movie makes the move from slightly cheesy to over-the-top cheeseville.

Aaron Ackerson

Miss Gretchen
08-12-2001, 06:01 PM
What about the animated bits of Run Lola Run? Kinda cool movie, but the cheesy cartoons made me squirm.

Crunchy Frog
08-12-2001, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
Crunchy, I certainly think "The Princess Bride" first, but then, I'm the kind of person who tends to think of an artist's best work, like "The Princess Bride", first, and the mediocre dreck--like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"--last.
oeab b ,beitob bn,o grarm,syi
adsthm ,cb hrfsut,tun6

Sorry, I just had to bang my head against the keyboard after reading that. You realize he won an Oscar for that piece of dreck (not that that really means anything, just look at Gladiator). It's all a matter of personal preference I guess.

I'm not saying one film is better than the other, as they are completely different genres (and I have both on DVD) but I'd hardly call it mediocre dreck. Maybe it helps if you watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as a character study instead of as a Western. If you want mediocre dreck from William Goldman, rent Maverick.

Now, just so my post isn't a complete hijack (sorry everyone) I'd also like to mention the film Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which was ruined for me by Kate Capshaw's whiny, clinging character. The other two films in the trilogy seemed better to me (besides having Connery in the 3rd one) because they had stronger female leads who could take care of themselves.

Chez Guevara
08-12-2001, 06:35 PM
A cracker, but spoiled just a little by the alien growing far too quickly in a short space of time.

I mean, one minute it is small enough to inhabit John Hurt's stomach and the next time you see it, it's towering above Harry Dean Stanton.

Crunchy Frog
08-12-2001, 07:04 PM
I just thought of another one. I love the film Excalibur, but how exactly does Uther Pendragon manage to have sex wearing all that armor?

urban1
08-12-2001, 07:21 PM
Raiders of the Lost Ark: We're given to believe that Indy is able to ride the back of a U-Boat all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the island of Malta, without the sub ever submerging (during a secret mission) and drowning him, and without any Germans in the conning tower seeing him.

I swear that I remember a scene when I first saw the movie where he wrapped his whip around the periscope while water was rising on the deck.

No, I don't use drugs, but I might have been drinking a little at the time.

Ranger
08-12-2001, 07:24 PM
I don't feel like thumbing through all my Callanhan Tales books, but some character in them mentioned that if Charles Foster Kane died alone, who was there to hear him say "Rosebud" as his final words. I haven't seen it in too many years myself, so I don't remember that scene very well.

Kaitlyn
08-12-2001, 10:24 PM
Crunchy Heh. Thought that would get a rise out of you. I don't really think Butch is dreck, but I can't resist the opportunity to bait its fans. I do the same thing with those who worship Fight Club and The Usual Suspects.

Having read the book The Princess Bride, I think it's a pretty safe bet that what ends up on the screen is what Goldman wrote.

I know that I'm in the minority in thinking Butch Cassidy is an average movie. I don't know how much of what is on the screen in Butch Cassidy comes from Goldman's script, so my judgement has to come from the movie itself. I find "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" to be an above average movie in most aspects. Were it not for one particular sequence, I'd say it's a pretty good movie. It isn't often that a single scene, no matter how bad, can ruin an otherwise good movie for me (except for deus ex machina endings), but the "Raindrops Keep Fallin on My Head" sequence stops the movie dead. It is so jarring, so out of place, that it makes it nearly impossible for me to reattach to the movie after it is over. Without this scene, I'd call it a good movie. With it, it's mediocre. Goldman is probably not responsible for this moment, but, even given the benefit of the doubt, I still think that "The Princess Bride" is his best screen work.

And don't bring up the Academy Awards. Forget last year and look at 1941. In the year that produced Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, Dumbo and Suspicion, the best picture was How Green Was My Valley? Please.

But while we're at it, 2000 was a spectactularly bad year for the Academy. They were 0 for 6 in the top six categories (Picture, director, the four acting categories), only one of the nominated films for best picture was one of the five best of the year, and "The Cell" doesn't get a nomination for visual effects? Again, please.

So that this isn't a total hijack, consider "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid" my new nomination, with the sequence described above being the stupid part.

Legomancer
08-12-2001, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
I still think that "The Princess Bride" is his best screen work.

And I have a hard time enjoying that movie, because for me it's divided up into three parts: the part where you dread the coming of the Billy Crystal scene, the Billy Crystal scene, and the part where you fume about the Billy Crystal scene.

To me that scene is just abyssmal. A similar scene is in "Dead Poets Society", which I don't think is a great movie, but which I think is sorely hampered by the one scene where Robin Williams completely breaks character and starts riffing as Robin Williams. It isn't funny and it completely breaks the mood. It would break the mood if it WAS funny, as well.

Crunchy Frog
08-12-2001, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
And don't bring up the Academy Awards.
Hey, I did say that the Awards didn't mean anything and cited last year as an example.

So that this isn't a total hijack, consider "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid" my new nomination, with the sequence described above being the stupid part. I was trying to think of a bad part in BC&SK so as not to have a complete hijack, but I couldn't come up with it. I'd forgotten all about that "Raindrops Are Falling on my Head" scene. Maybe because I always skip over it when I'm watching the movie. I agree with you. It doesn't advance the plot, it's out of place, and it doesn't do anything really except establish that Butch and what's-her-name really like each other, and I'm sure they could have accomplished that in a better way. I blame the director, not Goldman for that bit. (Even if Goldman had written in a montage like that, the director could've chosen to edit it out.)

Badtz Maru
08-12-2001, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Rossarian
Originally posted by Fiver
Raiders of the Lost Ark: We're given to believe that Indy is able to ride the back of a U-Boat all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the island of Malta, without the sub ever submerging (during a secret mission) and drowning him, and without any Germans in the conning tower seeing him.

I used to wonder about this, but at that time, submarines were far more efficient on the surface. They would cruise to wherever they were going and then submerge to attack. They couldn't stay submerged all that long without running out of battery power. So the U-Boat would have stayed on the surface the whole time, especially since this was prior to the war, and thus there was no reason to hide from anyone.

Yeah, pre-nuclear subs usually had diesel engines which could only run when on the surface (for obvious reasons) and batteries that they ran on underwater. You could only run the engines a certain amount of time underwater, were limited to about 10 knots at best, and had to run your engine on the surface hours to recharge the batteries afterwards. I learned all this from some old sub simulator, I believe it was called Silent Hunter or something like that.

Atreyu
08-13-2001, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I learned all this from some old sub simulator, I believe it was called Silent Hunter or something like that.

I bet you're thinking of Silent Service, which I played on the Atari ST computer that I had in the 1980s.

God, I loved that game. I'd kill to find a really good submarine warfare simulation today.

Ranger
08-13-2001, 11:45 AM
Atreyu, yeah, I used to play that on my Commodore 128 too. I wish they'd come out with a Windows version. Who needs all the fancy schmancy graphics and stuff, huh?

jab1
08-13-2001, 02:54 PM
I wish I could name all the otherwise great fantasy and science fiction movies that were ruined by a bad piece of special effects.

Scupper
08-13-2001, 04:09 PM
Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!




Unbreakable Fine movie that totally blew it with the America's Most Wanted "this is what happened to the two characters" titles at the end. Now Dunn is a superhero and Price is revealed as a maniac so he just calls the cops and they throw him in a mental hospital? It would have been a thousand times better if it had simply said "Based on an anonymous tip, the police discovered evidence of multiple acts of terrorism, but Elijah Price is still at large ..." Or, better yet, just had Dunn's reaction of horror be the finale without tacking on the text.

The Abyss A miraculous rescue of our heroic crew by ... a giant, ugly, plastic soap dish.

Four Weddings and a Funeral "Is it still raining? I hadn't noticed." The entire audience groaned.

The Matrix Thermodynamics, shmermodynamics. Conservation of energy is for losers.

L.A. Story The traffic sign scenes.

O Brother Where Art Thou Babyface Nelson machineguns some cows - jarring and unneccessary. We already know he's nuts just by the way he acts. Didn't wreck the movie, but seriously hurt it.

Shawshank Redemption The "good to see you old buddy" scene at the very end. The movie should have ended with Redd's narration "I hope" and left the actual reunion to our imaginations.

Singin' in the Rain The entire "Broadway Rhythm" bit where Gene Kelly keeps blasting out "Gotta Dance!" What the hell is that even doing in the movie, much less taking up a good fifth of it?

Shrek "All Star" by Smashmouth. How many more movies are going to subject us to this crappy song?

rjung
08-13-2001, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
I still think that "The Princess Bride" is his best screen work.
If I had to be stuck on a deserted island with just one movie, it'd be a close call between The Princess Bride or Toy Story 2.

And where is that link to the William Goldman/Saving Private Ryan diatribe? I wanna read it!

Spoke
08-13-2001, 04:33 PM
How about the Dr. Know sequence in A.I.?

Daowajan
08-13-2001, 05:02 PM
The cow-killing scene in O Brother is supposed to be an inside joke. There's another movie where the actor who plays Babyface Nelson is playing an escaped convict. He's walking through a field and finds a herd of cows. Then he yells "Cows! If there's one thing I love, it's cows!" and hugs one of them.

Koxinga
08-13-2001, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Scupper
Shawshank Redemption[/b] The "good to see you old buddy" scene at the very end. The movie should have ended with Redd's narration "I hope" and left the actual reunion to our imaginations.

That's the way Stephen King's novella ended. This was from Different Seasons, which also had Apt Pupil and The Body (which translated into the movie title Stand By Me). I haven't seen either of the latter two movies, and I don't think I will. A lot of Stephen King's best work includes a lot of psychological tension and interior monologues that don't translate well to the screen. Apt Pupil was an especially disturbing story, much more so than any "supernatural" thriller. I don't intend to ruin that story for myself by seeing it trivialized in the form of one of them thar flicker shows.

Crunchy Frog
08-13-2001, 05:44 PM
Speaking of Stand by Me, I'd like to add the scene where the boy tells a story about the fat kid participating in a pie eating contest only to throw up all over the place as a means of revenge. It's an incredibly stupid story to begin with, it drags the film to a screeching halt, and to top it all off it has nothing whatsoever to do with any other part of the film. Reiner should have edited it out.

Better yet, he shouldn't have filmed it to begin with.

jab1
08-13-2001, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Scupper
L.A. Story The traffic sign scenes.I saw this movie again last Saturday on the tube. The joke is the sign has been telling people mundane information all this time, but now it's decided to tell a select few stuff they REALLY need to know. (The first time Steve Martin sees the sign, there is a forlorn-looking guy holding a briefcase standing at the foot of the sign, looking up at it.)

Singin' in the Rain The entire "Broadway Rhythm" bit where Gene Kelly keeps blasting out "Gotta Dance!" What the hell is that even doing in the movie, much less taking up a good fifth of it?Kelly's character has an idea for a musical number. (Or was it a whole movie?) Anyway, he's pitching it to a producer. We're seeing what he's describing. (However, Singin' takes place in the late 1920s, so the movie-within-the-movie would NOT have been filmed in Technicolor!)

Kaitlyn
08-13-2001, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Scupper
Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!

L.A. Story The traffic sign scenes.

Shawshank Redemption The "good to see you old buddy" scene at the very end. The movie should have ended with Redd's narration "I hope" and left the actual reunion to our imaginations.

Singin' in the Rain The entire "Broadway Rhythm" bit where Gene Kelly keeps blasting out "Gotta Dance!" What the hell is that even doing in the movie, much less taking up a good fifth of it?



The parts of LA Story and Shawshank Redemption both work well for me, but that's a matter of taste.

Long Answer: The "Broadway Melody" section of Singin in the Rain shows us the new plot of "The Dancing Cavelier". The scenes we see describe the framing story for the picture. The already filmed cavalier scenes are to function as a dream sequence after the protaganist gets hit on the head, much the same as the dream sequence in "The Wizard of Oz".

Short Answer: Gene Kelly was primarily a dancer. This was his big dance sequence.

obfusciatrist
08-13-2001, 06:31 PM
Crunchy Frog: Sounds like you read the article I am talking about. It also tore into the other three best picture nominees that year.

Lux Fiat: The article was written for New York magazine, but I can't give you the date (the book I read doesn't give the information). However, you can read the article in a book titled The Big Picture: Who Killed Hollywood? and Other Essays (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557834067/). The essay is titled "The Emperor's New Fatigues (and Other Stories)" and is on page 245 of the hardcover edition.


(The archives at http://www.nymag.com may have this article but they were unavailable when I just tried it)

Rmat
08-13-2001, 06:45 PM
Field of Dreams and Goodfellas are both fine films, the latter especially so, and it would take a lot to ruin either, but that's damn near what happened in both:

1. The scene in which Amy Madigan's character (wife of the Costner character) gets on her high horse in the school gymnasium and then carries her dreadful performance into the nearby corridor--one of the worst acting performances I have ever seen in any movie.

2. The courtroom scene toward the end in which Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta) steps out of character to describe what's going on. Not that there's anything wrong with the acting in his case. It's the writing. The flow and rhythm of the entire film is irretrievably disrupted. Horribly, horribly jarring.

dasceder
08-13-2001, 09:04 PM
The part in "showgirls" when she barfs by the side of the car. sheesh. and



SPOILER



I thought the end of "Swiming with Sharks" was horrendous. Specifically the part when Frank Whaley's friend comes into his office and explains exactly what we know (probably) happened. It would have been much more effective had we gone from Keven Spacey's home after the pistol shot, to F. Whaley's office when Spacey pokes his head in the door.

...and so it is written

CrankyAsAnOldMan
08-13-2001, 09:10 PM
I forgot this one. I don't by any stretch of the imagination think this movie was academy-award winning stuff, but I bring it up because I found this one detail so jarring and wrong I could not get over it. I'm talking about the movie "Days of Thunder." Nicole Kidman's character is a neurologist. She treats two drivers in the movie for their injuries after head trauma. But later in the movie, we see her riding on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet.

A neurologist on the back of a big bike with no helmet.

Outrider
08-14-2001, 10:47 AM
The Straight Story - Richard Farnsworth's daughter saying "What's the number for 911?" in the beginning of the movie made me wince more than any other scene in any other movie that I can think of.

That is not a good way to illustrate that a person is slow, Disney movie or no Disney movie.

Come to think of it, that whole movie frustrated me to no end. Farnsworth's acting was superb, and there was some gorgeous cinematography, but all the overbearing sentimentality and Sissy Spacek's godawful attempt at a speech impediment made it very hard for me to really enjoy the movie. It's currently rated #108 on IMDB so I guess there are plenty of people who adore it, and I respect their opinion, but I'm not one of them.

P.S. I think this is the first time that I've had two posts in a thread that were made a year apart. :)

Skywatcher
08-14-2001, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Ranger
Atreyu, yeah, I used to play that on my Commodore 128 too. I wish they'd come out with a Windows version. Who needs all the fancy schmancy graphics and stuff, huh?

Well, howdy stranger! I have Silent Service II for DOS, but stopped playing because it didn't work too well on my 333mHz. Now that I also have a 166, I'll start playing again.

Mr. Miskatonic
08-14-2001, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
I would have enjoyed Gladiator more in retrospect if I hadn't viewed the outtakes. At least one of the outtakes seemed important to the plot (Oliver Reed telling Maximus that he is an "entertainer"--why else would Maximus be shouting to the crowd in the final version that "I am not an entertainer"!) and one or two that would have really added to Commodus's character development (especially one where he confronts a statue of his father, begins by attacking it with a sword and ends by embracing it and weeping much as he had when he murdered the old guy at the beginning of the movie). I wish that those scenes had been left in.

On the other hand, I am rather glad the 'firing squad' scene was removed.

While we're on Gladiator let me just say: "Crossbows? Let alone whirling 4 barrelled crossbows? And Iron armored carriages? I don't think so Ridley."

Other than that, I liked it a lot.

Cervaise
08-14-2001, 12:36 PM
Couple of nitpicks:(Doghouse Reilly) why else would Maximus be shouting to the crowd in the final version that "I am not an entertainer"!The quote is actually "Are you not entertained?" But yeah, I agree it makes more sense with the ten-second setup where Proximo tells him to entertain the crowd. Gotta save that ten seconds, don'tcha know. :rolleyes:(Scupper) Singin' in the Rain The entire "Broadway Rhythm" bit where Gene Kelly keeps blasting out "Gotta Dance!" What the hell is that even doing in the movie, much less taking up a good fifth of it?Trivia about Singin' in the Rain -- The producers had a selection of songs from the studio library, and wanted to build a show around them. As far as I know, not a single song was actually composed for the movie (I might be wrong about this, but at most one song is original). The screenwriters, therefore, had to mix-n-match and shuffle everything around until they had managed to create a more or less logical sequence. Given that constraint, it's amazing the movie works as well as it does; complaining about a single "out of place" number just illustrates how well everything else was integrated into an after-the-fact storyline.

kingpengvin
08-14-2001, 01:21 PM
Malcolm X was a great movie with a strong performance by Mr Washington. The it ends with Nelson Mendella (okayy) and a buch of kids jumping up and yelling "I am Malcom X"
sorry but that is lame.

jab1
08-14-2001, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by dasceder
The part in "showgirls" when she barfs by the side of the car.This thread is about stupid stuff in otherwise okay movies. So you think that absurd hunka crap Showgirls is an otherwise okay movie?!?!? :eek:

Sunshine
08-14-2001, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Ranger
I don't feel like thumbing through all my Callanhan Tales books, but some character in them mentioned that if Charles Foster Kane died alone, who was there to hear him say "Rosebud" as his final words. I haven't seen it in too many years myself, so I don't remember that scene very well.

Wow, that's creepy, Ranger...I just read this book yesterday. It's The Callahan Touch, where they open up the new bar, Mary's Place. The claricaune tells story that he saw the director and Brando while at Cannes and asks them who was there to hear Kane's last words since supposedly he died alone, and the two men left the table and refused to speak to him again.
I thought it was pretty funny. And creepy that you mentioned it since I just read it.

Mekhazzio
08-15-2001, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Legomancer
No one seems to have mentioned Aliens. This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and I think it's nigh-perfect, but there's one scene that always bugs me. It's the scene when the Colonial Marines are talking about their adventures having sex with alien beings. It's a strange scene and adds nothing and I think detracts from the whole "alien" nature of the "Aliens".

No way! That's just one part of the constant pre-mission banter between the marines and, like the rest, it gives us a glimpse into who they are. That whole segment from wakeup to drop is, in my mind, the most important part of the movie, as we get a feel for the characters as individual people and not just nameless, faceless soldiers.

As for detracting from their interaction with the buggies, not hardly. It really helps set the stage for what happens, and explains why they break down so thoroughly. Non-human life is apparently nothing new to them, as they'd been there and done that before. As Hudson said, "Will this be a standup fight, sir, or another bug-hunt?". They were confident they were going to go in, clobber some mindless animals that the dumbass colonists couldn't take care of, and be done with it in time for dinner. The real thrill of the movie, is that the buggies AREN'T mindless animals, and the marines are caught totally off-guard by it. That's what keeps it from just being an action shooter movie, and turns it into a human story, as our now-familiar characters struggle to adapt to this disastrous "first contact", each in their own way.

It's just a shame the movie's so short. There's so much more that could have been done with it, but then the pacing might not have been so superbly handled.

Can you tell I love this movie? :D

MrVisible
08-15-2001, 02:22 AM
I have to agree with Mekhazzio on the Aliens dialog; it seems strange that so many people complain about the lack of characterization in modern movies, and who then turn around and complain about the efforts made to develop rounded characters. The scene made sense to me. And not just because I have a massive secret crush on Mekhazzio, either.

You know what didn't make sense to me? The soundtrack to Ladyhawke. I got the DVD a while ago. Still the same, solid, fun fantasy film. Still the same insanely intrusive soundtrack. I remember seeing that in a movie theatre when it came out, and thinking the soundtrack already sounded dated. Alan Parsons or not, it didn't belong in the film.

Badtz Maru
08-15-2001, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Crunchy Frog
Speaking of Stand by Me, I'd like to add the scene where the boy tells a story about the fat kid participating in a pie eating contest only to throw up all over the place as a means of revenge. It's an incredibly stupid story to begin with, it drags the film to a screeching halt, and to top it all off it has nothing whatsoever to do with any other part of the film. Reiner should have edited it out.

Better yet, he shouldn't have filmed it to begin with.

It's in the book, and it gives an example of how the main character was into telling stories from early on (he's an author as an adult). I felt it made the characters a bit more real, and didn't feel it detracted from the movie at all.

initech
08-15-2001, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Rmat
Field of Dreams and Goodfellas are both fine films, the latter especially so, and it would take a lot to ruin either, but that's damn near what happened in both:

...

2. The courtroom scene toward the end in which Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta) steps out of character to describe what's going on. Not that there's anything wrong with the acting in his case. It's the writing. The flow and rhythm of the entire film is irretrievably disrupted. Horribly, horribly jarring.

It's supposed to be jarring! It's the end of The Life for Henry, and the end of the story. He doesn't step out of character, he steps out of the scene and into the present. Of course the entire film is irretrievably disrupted; it's over! After this, Henry is wearing a terry robe and lives in the suburbs and has to live the rest of his life like a schnook.

The part I've never liked (and this is my favorite movie ever) is the last shot, of Joe Pesci firing a gun at the camera. It seems gratuitous and tacked on to punch up the ending. Just my take, and if there's more to it that I don't get, I'd love to know it.

Legomancer
08-15-2001, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Mekhazzio
No way! That's just one part of the constant pre-mission banter between the marines and, like the rest, it gives us a glimpse into who they are. That whole segment from wakeup to drop is, in my mind, the most important part of the movie, as we get a feel for the characters as individual people and not just nameless, faceless soldiers.

I'm not talking about the whole scene, just the parts that deal specifically with having sex with other alien races. To me, that hurts the movie because the movie is called "Aliens". The whole idea is that their enemy is Alien. It's something these people are not prepared for. I like that they banter, I like that they are more fully developed than grunts usually are, but when they're talking about having sex with alien beings of indeterminate gender, to me it compromises the whole otherworldlyness of the aliens. It's also kind of goofy.

In the "Alien" universe it's never established what non-Earth beings Earthlings are familiar with. But finding out the extent of human interaction with alien species with that dialogue was kind of jarring to me.

psychogumby
08-15-2001, 10:17 AM
I am surprised that no-one has picked up and run with this classic example of Stupid Stupid Stuff In An Otherwise Okay Movie: The Liquid Nitrogen Tanker in Terminator 2.

I have only ever seen ONE liquid nitrogen tanker on the road in all my years as a travelling sales rep. And this tanker was coming out of a warehouse where chemicals (including, i'm assuming, liquid nitrogen) are stored.

T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

nerv
08-15-2001, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by psychogumby
I am surprised that no-one has picked up and run with this classic example of Stupid Stupid Stuff In An Otherwise Okay Movie: The Liquid Nitrogen Tanker in Terminator 2.

I have only ever seen ONE liquid nitrogen tanker on the road in all my years as a travelling sales rep. And this tanker was coming out of a warehouse where chemicals (including, i'm assuming, liquid nitrogen) are stored.

T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

Hey, you should have had a spoiler warning there! You've just given away the ending to T3!

Outrider
08-15-2001, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by nerv
Originally posted by psychogumby
T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

Hey, you should have had a spoiler warning there! You've just given away the ending to T3!

It's true. Forget using humans as an energy source. In the future, machines will tap the energy potential of elephant semen!

John Connor: "Oh shit, it's the T-9000. Did you come from the future to try to kill me?"

T-9000: "What? Hell no, just tell me where I can buy two large buckets and show me how to get to the zoo"

Kaitlyn
08-15-2001, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by initech


The part I've never liked (and this is my favorite movie ever) is the last shot, of Joe Pesci firing a gun at the camera. It seems gratuitous and tacked on to punch up the ending. Just my take, and if there's more to it that I don't get, I'd love to know it.

This is a tribute to the very first heist movie, The Great Train Robbery, which ends with one of the bandits turning to the camera and firing at it. It seems tame now, but at the time it really freaked out the audience, many of whom had never seen any movie before.

Spoke
08-15-2001, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
This is a tribute to the very first heist movie, The Great Train Robbery, which ends with one of the bandits turning to the camera and firing at it. It seems tame now, but at the time it really freaked out the audience, many of whom had never seen any movie before.

There are stories (perhaps apocryphal) of movie patrons being so startled that they drew their own weapons and fired back at the screen.

dasceder
08-15-2001, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by jab1
Originally posted by dasceder
"The part in "showgirls" when she barfs by the side of the car."

"This thread is about stupid stuff in otherwise okay movies. So you think that absurd hunka crap"Showgirls" is an otherwise okay movie?!?!?"



Erm, no jab1. Never much cared for "Showgirls." Though I still maintain that, aside from "Dead Man on Campus" and the upcoming Lark Voorhees vehicle, "Showgirls" is my favorite "Saved By the Bell" alumnus flick.

initech
08-15-2001, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
Originally posted by initech


The part I've never liked (and this is my favorite movie ever) is the last shot, of Joe Pesci firing a gun at the camera. It seems gratuitous and tacked on to punch up the ending. Just my take, and if there's more to it that I don't get, I'd love to know it.

This is a tribute to the very first heist movie, The Great Train Robbery, which ends with one of the bandits turning to the camera and firing at it. It seems tame now, but at the time it really freaked out the audience, many of whom had never seen any movie before.

Thanks!

Lux Fiat
08-16-2001, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by obfusciatrist
Lux Fiat: The article was written for New York magazine, but I can't give you the date (the book I read doesn't give the information). However, you can read the article in a book titled The Big Picture: Who Killed Hollywood? and Other Essays (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557834067/). The essay is titled "The Emperor's New Fatigues (and Other Stories)" and is on page 245 of the hardcover edition.


(The archives at http://www.nymag.com may have this article but they were unavailable when I just tried it)Cool. I'll look around for it. Thanks.

Badtz Maru
08-16-2001, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by psychogumby
I am surprised that no-one has picked up and run with this classic example of Stupid Stupid Stuff In An Otherwise Okay Movie: The Liquid Nitrogen Tanker in Terminator 2.

I have only ever seen ONE liquid nitrogen tanker on the road in all my years as a travelling sales rep. And this tanker was coming out of a warehouse where chemicals (including, i'm assuming, liquid nitrogen) are stored.

T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

I saw one last week in Dallas, TX.

Koxinga
08-16-2001, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Originally posted by psychogumby
I am surprised that no-one has picked up and run with this classic example of Stupid Stupid Stuff In An Otherwise Okay Movie: The Liquid Nitrogen Tanker in Terminator 2.

I have only ever seen ONE liquid nitrogen tanker on the road in all my years as a travelling sales rep. And this tanker was coming out of a warehouse where chemicals (including, i'm assuming, liquid nitrogen) are stored.

T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

I saw one last week in Dallas, TX.

Who in Dallas needs that much elephant semen?

Hamlet
08-16-2001, 01:53 PM
The stupid stupid idea of putting Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado About Nothing".

I could not agree more, although I nearly peed my pants when he turned to Denzell Washington and said:

"My most excellent Lord"

He sounded just like he did in the Bill & Ted movies. God awful.

Balance
08-16-2001, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by psychogumby
T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

And just how many tankers of elephant jizz have you seen? I suspect (hope!) that the answer is "zero", which gives us a 1:0 ratio--making it infinitely more likely that mercury-boy would run into the N2l. :D

More seriously, I've seen a lot of N2l tankers. They're not nearly as uncommon as you think--maybe you just haven't noticed them, or live in an area where the chemical isn't used much?

rjung
08-16-2001, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Outrider
John Connor: "Oh shit, it's the T-9000. Did you come from the future to try to kill me?"

T-9000: "What? Hell no, just tell me where I can buy two large buckets and show me how to get to the zoo"
Great, Outrider -- I just horked my lunch... :D

thinksnow
08-16-2001, 05:21 PM
Doghouse Reilly
T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

I saw one last week in Dallas, TX. [/QUOTE]

Who in Dallas needs that much elephant semen? [/QUOTE]Thanks you dick, now my coworkers know I'm not working from my barely muffled guffafs!


Another thing:jab1 (page3)
What bothered me was Han Solo referring to a parsec as a unit of time.I know I read this in another thread so if I screw it up, forgive me:
When Han Solo bragged about doing the Kestle (sp?) Run in in however many parsecs, it was a big deal because it involved doing some risky flying/navigating past/through unstable systems or something.
It was a claim of bravado and skill, since the normal, safe route was much longer.

Or I'm completely wrong.

jab1
08-16-2001, 05:34 PM
Han's actual line was: "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs." It's like someone bragging that he drove from Los Angeles to San Diego in less than 100 miles. It makes no sense.

The line indicates two things: George Lucas writes terrible dialogue and that he didn't know at the time that a parsec is a unit of distance, not time. His explanation, when someone pointed this out to him, was that Solo didn't always know what he was talking about. Unfortunately, this makes Obi-Wan and Luke either look like fools for trusting him or that they, too, did not know what a parsec was.

Balance
08-16-2001, 05:41 PM
Don't try confusing us with real-world facts jab! The retcon thinksnow described is acceptable, as it provides a plausible explanation for something that would otherwise be an awful gaffe. I don't care if Lucas was clueless, as long as Han wasn't.

psychogumby
08-16-2001, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Balance
Originally posted by psychogumby
T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

More seriously, I've seen a lot of N2l tankers. They're not nearly as uncommon as you think--maybe you just haven't noticed them, or live in an area where the chemical isn't used much?

This is Australia, after all. The only tankers we see other than for fuel (and, occasionally, elephant semen) are carrying bulk quantities of wine.

If they wanted to make it more realistic, T1000 shoulda hit a wine tanker and died of a combinatiion of alcohol poisoning and choking on his own vomit. Just think of what the special effects people could have come up with ... T1000 spewing exorcist-sized quantities of liquid metal with carrots in it!

buddy1
08-16-2001, 06:31 PM
..make very little sense! I cite:
-the various reincarnations of "ALIEN": why keep going back to that horrible planet? Everybody knows that you are going to wind up as food!
-"POLTERGEIST"-this family is so dumb, they keep buying houses built over cemetaries!
-"ROCKY"-this dope hasn't enough sense to stay out of the ring!
-"JURASSIC PARK"(see ALIEN, above)
- "PLANET OF THE APES": leave well enough alone!Besides, Markey mark isn't cute anymore!
-PEARL HARBOR"-the sequel to every lousy WWII movie ever made!

madcowmccoy
08-16-2001, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by jab1
Han's actual line was: "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs." It's like someone bragging that he drove from Los Angeles to San Diego in less than 100 miles. It makes no sense.

The line indicates two things: George Lucas writes terrible dialogue and that he didn't know at the time that a parsec is a unit of distance, not time. His explanation, when someone pointed this out to him, was that Solo didn't always know what he was talking about. Unfortunately, this makes Obi-Wan and Luke either look like fools for trusting him or that they, too, did not know what a parsec was.
A possible explanation (for no other reason than to defend a childhood favorite): Perhaps he was referring to a more efficient route than the one taken by Imperial/other ships, though how this is attributable to the ship itself is beyond me. (Perhaps doing so required more maneuverability?)

Well, whatever. The new trilogy is gonna blow, anyway.

Crunchy Frog
08-16-2001, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by jab1
Han's actual line was: "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs." It's like someone bragging that he drove from Los Angeles to San Diego in less than 100 miles. It makes no sense. This is explained in the books (someone get SPOOFE in here). I don't recall the exact details, but it does involve taking some serious flying risks instead of traveling the longer, safer route.

Koxinga
08-16-2001, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by psychogumby
This is Australia, after all. The only tankers we see other than for fuel (and, occasionally, elephant semen) are carrying bulk quantities of wine.

Ah, the Land of Oz. Don't you also see some of those diesel tankers barrelling desperately down the road, pursued by post-nuclear pirate biker gangs wearing scary masks and wielding crossbows and catapults?

The driver is shitting his pants not because he's afraid of losing his load, but because he hates to think what the gang will do to him when they find out it's actually elephant semen . . .

jab1
08-16-2001, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Balance
I don't care if Lucas was clueless, as long as Han wasn't. If the writer is clueless, then his characters must also be clueless.

saepiroth
08-16-2001, 10:00 PM
apperently, near the planet kessel, there is a giant amalgamation of supermassive black holes orbiting each other, creating a huge gravity well.

because the Millenium Falcon was equipped with an obcenely powerful hyperdrive, it could make a much shallower arc around the holes than the normal shipping lanes.


(the major trade center was on the opposite side of the black holes from kessel, so they had to pass them somehow.)

Badtz Maru
08-16-2001, 11:59 PM
I prefer the 'He didn't know what he was talking about' story. If you watch closely when he says that Obi-Wan gets a look on his face like he realizes what an idiot Han is but doesn't want to say anything - probably not wanting to spook the kid, and he IS their ride...

Atreyu
08-17-2001, 12:05 AM
I think the explanation that Lucas didn't know what the hell a parsec is more likely. I don't see any other examples of Solo fumbling astronomical terms anywhere else in the Star Wars movies.

It isn't really a problem. Just an amusing goof that Lucas simply doesn't want to own up to.

Ranger
08-17-2001, 12:46 AM
minor hijack..

the first star wars film reminded me so much of an old western. Especially that scene. There's the kid fresh from the farm, the wise, somewhat mystical, old man, and the swaggering know it all guy that screws up now and then. "I've been from one side of this galaxy to the other..."

Koxinga
08-17-2001, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I prefer the 'He didn't know what he was talking about' story. If you watch closely when he says that Obi-Wan gets a look on his face like he realizes what an idiot Han is but doesn't want to say anything

Or possibly Sir Alec Guinness was realizing what an idiot George Lucas is. When Sir Alec passed away last year, I read an excerpt of an interview where he expressed some dismay over how hysterically popular Star Wars had become. He said that once he ran into a little boy and his mother, and the kid of course was absolutely star-struck to meet Obi-Wan Kenobi face to face. Supposedly there was an exchange something along the lines of the following:

Little Boy: Oh Wow, Mr. Guinness, you are the greatest! I've seen Star Wars twenty times! I would do anything for you!

Alec Guinness: Do you really mean that?

LB: Absolutely!

AG: Then I want you to promise me that you will never, never watch Star Wars again.

The little kid starts crying, and the mother drags him away while shouting that that was the cruellest thing she had ever heard.

BabaBooey
08-17-2001, 12:10 PM
I guess this is more of a movie mistake than a scene I didn't like (though it did ruin a major part of the movie), but in The Cell, did anyone else notice the toilet in the water-filling chamber? I think you can figure out why that can be a huge problem with the room presenting any danger to the person inside it...

pldennison
08-17-2001, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by BabaBooey
I guess this is more of a movie mistake than a scene I didn't like (though it did ruin a major part of the movie), but in The Cell, did anyone else notice the toilet in the water-filling chamber? I think you can figure out why that can be a huge problem with the room presenting any danger to the person inside it...

Maybe. If you don't understand how a toilet works.

nerv
08-17-2001, 12:59 PM
Too many previous post to quote them all, but the theme song to Mad Max IV Meets Terminator III should be "We Don't Need Another Bucket of Elephant Sperm".

jab1
08-17-2001, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I prefer the 'He didn't know what he was talking about' story. If you watch closely when he says that Obi-Wan gets a look on his face like he realizes what an idiot Han is but doesn't want to say anything - probably not wanting to spook the kid, and he IS their ride... But after leaving the bar, Ben says, "If his ship is as good as he's boasting, we ought to do well." (which is another bit of evidence that Lucas has a tin ear when it comes to dialogue). Ben rolled his eyes because Solo was bragging so much.

If Solo was an idiot, why didn't they hire someone smarter? Was he the only one desperate enough to take on such a risky job? Were Luke and Ben forced to settle for someone less than ideal?

There is a theory that allows the scene to work: Chewie is really the brains of the outfit! Han owns the ship, but he's just smart enough to realize he needs someone smarter than he to make his enterprise work.

Kaitlyn
08-17-2001, 06:14 PM
Rush Hour is a good movie except for the scenes with Chris Tucker.:)

Kaitlyn
08-17-2001, 06:17 PM
Dang it, that should be Rush Hour 2 is a good movie except for the Chris Tucker scenes.

Spoonbender
08-17-2001, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by jab1
There is a theory that allows the scene to work: Chewie is really the brains of the outfit! Han owns the ship, but he's just smart enough to realize he needs someone smarter than he to make his enterprise work.

I like that idea. Han is to Chewie as Bush is to Cheney! :)

Ross
08-17-2001, 07:36 PM
Look, I got two pages in then ran out of patience, okay? I may be doubling some replies here...

But firstly I have to complain about Hollwyood's depressing insistence on EVERY FREAKING THING turning into a love story. Something messed-up inside me has a real problem with love stories, probably jealousy and self-hatred, so making me sit through such drivel every time is a little less than helpful. I really enjoyed Enemy at the Gates because I really like snipers, but my fast-forward button will need replacing soon. Ditto Titanic, incidentally... I know most of the movies have sucked but were the filmmakers so unsure of the inherent coolness of the real story that they had to make me sit through hours of "Come on, Rose! There's water here, Rose! I'll SPOILER DELETED soon, Rose, and then you can have a great life, Rose!" What was that about, Rose?

And secondly. Se7en. The ending was just nasty. Unpleasant. Sick for its own sake. Not like in The Usual Suspects where you're on Kaiser Soze's side when he shoots his wife and child. But just irretrievably evil, as if its only purpose was to show how evil evil could be. What was the point? That evil is evil? WE KNOW THAT, dude. Or perhaps we were supposed to be shocked by the inevitable conclusion to our half-enjoying the voyeurism of watching the other deaths... hey, that kinda makes sense. Sorry I mentioned it.
I still wish Kevin Spacey had just turned good and married Widow Twankey, though... ::sigh:: someday...

Ross
08-17-2001, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by someone
"Crossbows? Let alone whirling 4 barrelled crossbows? And Iron armored carriages? I don't think so..."[/B]I saw a documentary recently on BBC called What the Romans Did For Us (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/tech_01.shtml) wherein it was pretty conclusively proved that the Romans did at least have rapidly-reloading crossbows, so that one didn't have to spend a minute shoving in another bolt. Not too far to a rapidfire mechanism. May already be proven; worth checking out.

Ross
08-17-2001, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Ross
[QUOTE]... it was pretty conclusively proved that the Romans did at least have rapidly-reloading crossbows...Sorry, for "crossbow" read "ballista". But the ballista in this case was just a big crossbow.

Mr. Miskatonic
08-17-2001, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by psychogumby
I am surprised that no-one has picked up and run with this classic example of Stupid Stupid Stuff In An Otherwise Okay Movie: The Liquid Nitrogen Tanker in Terminator 2.

I have only ever seen ONE liquid nitrogen tanker on the road in all my years as a travelling sales rep. And this tanker was coming out of a warehouse where chemicals (including, i'm assuming, liquid nitrogen) are stored.

T1000 was more likely to run into a tanker full of elephant semen than a tanker full of liquid nitrogen.

I've seen plenty of tankers in PA. They are certainly around. Heck, once a road in Philly was closed for hours when a tanker carrying liquid CO2 flipped on its side.

Of course, does LA have that kind of heavy industry in its local area? (namely the foundry they were fighting in.)

Also, if the tanker did crack open, you would see nothing but fog, even in dry LA air.

Mr. Miskatonic
08-17-2001, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Ross
Originally posted by Ross
[QUOTE]... it was pretty conclusively proved that the Romans did at least have rapidly-reloading crossbows...Sorry, for "crossbow" read "ballista". But the ballista in this case was just a big crossbow.

There's actually a big difference in metalurgy between ballistae and crossbows. That hand held job was a bit much to take as compared to Ballista (which I know they've had for ages.

Its not too horrible, though, it barely plays a part in the movie.

Now for just plain awful, have a look at the bad movie "First Knight" where the director/scriptwriter is so unable to get away from firearms that he arms the bad guy knights with one-hand crossbows. All they needed were fucking cowboy hats to be done with it.

Rilchiam
08-20-2001, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by pldennison
Originally posted by BabaBooey
I guess this is more of a movie mistake than a scene I didn't like (though it did ruin a major part of the movie), but in The Cell, did anyone else notice the toilet in the water-filling chamber? I think you can figure out why that can be a huge problem with the room presenting any danger to the person inside it...

Maybe. If you don't understand how a toilet works.

All right: why wouldn't it be useful?

Darqangelle
08-28-2001, 07:32 PM
Goldeneye...

The return of Bond: Okay.
Introducing Brosnan as Bond: Okay.
Keeping Bond legendary, yet bringing him up-to-date: Okay.
Introducing a new M: Okay.
Giving Bond a new car from a different manufacturer: Okay.
Advertising the fact that this is Bond's new car: Okay.

But having Q spend five minutes introducing the car, going through the weapon systems, pronouncing the damned name right...

...then having it used as pleasurable transport for three minutes of screen time JUST TO HAVE HIM TRADE IT FOR A PLANE!!!

Why was the car even there in the first place?? It seems to me that the need for a car was never in the cards in the original script, so they had to try and 'fit it in' wherever possible. The scriptwriters couldn't even come up with a reasonable use for the car at all, so they just tacked a few scenes in. It was SUCH a tacky push by BMW and the scriptwriters, making me wonder why they even bothered to deal with BMW in the first place!

The Saint was Volvo's advertising vehicle, but at least the car was USED!

...sorry, I just needed to get that off my shoulder...

jab1
08-28-2001, 08:40 PM
It's called "product placement." BMW paid mucho dinero to get the car in the movie. At least the car was used well in The World is Not Enough (aka "TWINE").

pesch
08-28-2001, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by jab1
The line indicates two things: George Lucas writes terrible dialogue and that he didn't know at the time that a parsec is a unit of distance, not time.

Or, to quote Harrison Ford, who told Lucas: "George, you can write this shit but you sure can't say it."

pldennison
08-28-2001, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Rilchiam
Originally posted by pldennison
Originally posted by BabaBooey
I guess this is more of a movie mistake than a scene I didn't like (though it did ruin a major part of the movie), but in The Cell, did anyone else notice the toilet in the water-filling chamber? I think you can figure out why that can be a huge problem with the room presenting any danger to the person inside it...

Maybe. If you don't understand how a toilet works.

All right: why wouldn't it be useful?

Because:

A) Toilets work through gravity, not through any sort of vacuum power. You can't just keep flushing them and empty more and more water from the room. If you'd like to test it, run a garden hose into your toilet bowl with the water on all the way, keep flushing your toilet, and count how many minutes until you really need to mop the floor. You can't just hold the handle down and watch water flow out of the room;
B) Toilets refill with water from the tank when you flush them anyway, and I seriously doubt Mr. Crazy Killer was dumb enough to put the shutoff valve inside the little room; and
C)Even if it could work, you couldn't start flushing to empty the room of water until it was high enough to be a danger anyway. The flow rate into the room would most likely still exceed the flush rate.

Crunchy Frog
08-28-2001, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by buddy1
..make very little sense! I cite:
-the various reincarnations of "ALIEN": why keep going back to that horrible planet? Everybody knows that you are going to wind up as food!
<snip>
-PEARL HARBOR"-the sequel to every lousy WWII movie ever made!
Just some nitpicks, in the ALIEN trilogy, IIRC, they only went to that planet in the 1st and 2nd movie. And at the beginning of the 2nd film, they had no reason to not know to go back there.

And as for Pearl Harbor, and this leads to another film I recently saw, here you have a real life true-story event about a major turning point in American History. That's not exciting enough though, you know what would spice up an action movie about a surprise attack? A love triangle! Buy a clue, screenwriters.

This leads me to Enemy at the Gates, which I recently rented. It is the true stroy of a Russian sniper and German sniper playing cat-an-mouse during the Battle of Stalingrad during WWII. Sounds interesting and suspenceful enough, doesn't it? No, you know what they decide the film needs? A LOVE TRIANGLE! Stop it already. Love triangles do not automtically make a film more interesting. The scenes invloving the girl slowed down the film and interupted the suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse the two snipers were playing with one another. And on top of which ....


****SPOILER FOR ENEMY AT THE GATES****
IRL, the Russian sniper pinpointed the German sniper by a glint of light off the German's scope. The Russian fired, and they later found the bullet had gone through the scope into the eye of the German sniper (so says the History Channel, a documentary of which promtped me to rent the film). The filmakers decide to twist the ending to resemble a Western showdown with the two of them standing, fully exposed to enemy fire in a trainyard.

Knowing the real life ending to the story spoiled the film version for me, since it didn't follow.

Kaitlyn
08-28-2001, 11:37 PM
SPOILERS ABOUT ENEMY AT THE GATES

Crunchy, you're being too kind to the ending of Enemy at the Gates. I had no problem with the love triangle (didn't like it, but was able to dismiss it), but the ending really grated at me. Not because it wasn't like the real life ending, I couldn't care less about that, but beacuse it was soooooooo idiotic. The master German sniper had confronted the Russian sniper four times during the movie. Each of the four times, the Russian had a partner, three of whom the German killed. In the final confrontation, Russian partner reveals himself, drawing fire from German. Good ending: Russian fires back a split second later, killing him. Nope. German immediately leaves his bunker, apparently forgetting that Russian always works with a partner, exposing himself. Logical ending: Russian kills him from cover. Nope. German leaves cover also, so that he can sneak up behind German, both of them exposed in daylight to hundreds of possible sniper positions.

Neither had ever done anything other than take cover and wait for a target to reveal himself, and suddenly they're John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. I hate it so much because the movie had me until then.

Crunchy Frog
08-28-2001, 11:44 PM
****MORE SPOILERS ABOUT ENEMY AT THE GATES****



Originally posted by Number Six
German immediately leaves his bunker, apparently forgetting that Russian always works with a partner, exposing himself. Logical ending: Russian kills him from cover. Nope. Russian leaves cover also, so that he can sneak up behind German, both of them exposed in daylight to hundreds of possible sniper positions.

The bolded part above is my correction and what I'm guessing you meant to say.

Neither had ever done anything other than take cover and wait for a target to reveal himself, and suddenly they're John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. I hate it so much because the movie had me until then.

Yeah, I was going to get into that, but I figured my post was long enough, but that's what I was getting at with:
"The filmakers decide to twist the ending to resemble a Western showdown with the two of them standing, fully exposed to enemy fire in a trainyard."

It's like the filmmakers suddenly forgot the characters are two exceptionally well-disciplined snipers. The bad ending was made that much worse for me knowing how Vassali actually got his man.

Kaitlyn
08-29-2001, 12:35 AM
Crunchy: Yeah, that's what I meant, thanks for the correction. I realize I was just repeating what you said with a bit more detail, but I just had to chime in with a "me too" because I hate nothing more than a movie that really has me in its grip until the very end and then blows it so spectacularly. For me, this ranks up there with the endings of "Other People's Money" and "Revenge".

Let me rant a bit:





SPOILERS FOR REVENGE:

Kevin Costner is a retired fighter jock vacationing on close friend Anthony Quinn's Mexican ranch, and has an affair with Quinn's beautiful wife. Quinn finds out, and has his minions do all sorts of nasty things to Costner and his wife. Costner barely escapes with his skin, and proceeds to try to extract some Revenge. He makes with some nasty things himself, and finally confronts Quinn. Time for a showdown, a great exchange of dialog, or for one or the other to do something really, really, nasty, either physically or mentally to the other.

What we get is certainly a surprise. "Revenge" is a true shaggy dog story (a shaggy dog story is a long, elaborate joke with no real punchline told for the amusement of the teller whose real goal is to keep listeners hooked for as long as possible without any payoff). Here it is, the big payoff: Quinn asks for an apology from Costner. Costner apologizes. I sincerely beleive that the filmmakers were playing an elaborate practical joke on the audience. I hate this movie more than any other I've ever seen.

Freudian Slit
08-29-2001, 12:44 AM
In Jurassic Park.

Timmy, who knows much about dinosaurs, Lex, and Grant are watching the dinosaurs stampede toward them. Grant asks Tim what kind of dinosaur they are, and Tim replies, "Galimimus." I mean, Grant is a paleontologist. He should be able to figure it out for himself, right? They already emphasized Tim's love of dinosaurs, and later on, in the kitchen scene, Lex asking Tim about the raptors is even more chilling and emphatic. It just always bothered me. Nothing else, just that one.

Crunchy Frog
08-29-2001, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Zoggie
Grant asks Tim what kind of dinosaur they are, and Tim replies, "Galimimus." I mean, Grant is a paleontologist. He should be able to figure it out for himself, right?I don't think Grant was asking Timmy out of ignorance of the dinosaurs' names. The tone of his voice when he asked seemed more like a teacher asking a student to me.

thermalribbon
08-29-2001, 11:03 AM
I thought Traffic was okay but I couldn't believe that while it was winnning all of those critics awards nobody complained of that huge contrivance of a plot. I mean c'mon, the drug czar's daughter is a huge druggie?!?!?!?! WTF!

This is another example of a screenwriter/director making a point with the sublety of a sledehammer. Among edgy and creative direction and several excellant performances is the kind of plot that makes you cringe on several occasions.
Give me a little credit for being able to figure out that the war on drugs is a complicated issue with many nuances. Geez!

Darqangelle
08-29-2001, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by jab1
It's called "product placement." BMW paid mucho dinero to get the car in the movie. At least the car was used well in The World is Not Enough (aka "TWINE").

NOnonononono...I get "product placement". That's when you see someone drinking from and holding a Pepsi can with the label out. That's when you see someone answering their Nokia phone with the logo in a funny place (under the chin so the camera can get a clear shot), or placing the BMW in Q's office while various lab-coated people fiddle with it...

...what I despised was that Q introduced the car, told Bond about what the car's got and what it can do (as he has with various cars in past films), and making the big presentation only to have the car be used for what was essentialy a useless and pointless joyride.

Darq in theatre: "So MI5 transports the BMW to Cuba just so he can drive five miles even though what he really needs aroud those islands is a plane... riiiiight."

I agree that they way they handled the new Beemer in TWINE was the way they SHOULD have handled it in the first place. THAT car got used!

In comparison, Volvo ALSO paid much for Templar's use of their new coupe. But at least there was a scene where it was used. No big presentation needed, but the car was an excellent example of well done (not hoaringly obvious) product placement.

Darqangelle
08-29-2001, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by thermalribbon
I mean c'mon, the drug czar's daughter is a huge druggie?!?!?!?! WTF!

I think you meant the anti-drug czar's daughter.

Ethilrist
08-29-2001, 12:43 PM
In E.T., when the kids are riding through the streets on their bicycles and the Bad Adults are trying to stop them, a cop pulls out his shotgun and steps out into the street. Who, exactly, was he planning on shooting?

Heloise
08-29-2001, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Ethilrist
In E.T., when the kids are riding through the streets on their bicycles and the Bad Adults are trying to stop them, a cop pulls out his shotgun and steps out into the street. Who, exactly, was he planning on shooting?

I guess you're not from Southern California, where the police pull out their guns at the slightest excuse, in the hopes that they might get to kill someone/thing. Later, they can say they thought one of the kids pulled out a gun. Works IRL, anyway. ;)

lieu
08-29-2001, 02:14 PM
If they'd just remove the scene in Meet The Parents from the beginning of the movie to the end, it would have been much better. It was still a great title.

jab1
08-29-2001, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Darqangelle
...what I despised was that Q introduced the car, told Bond about what the car's got and what it can do (as he has with various cars in past films), and making the big presentation only to have the car be used for what was essentialy a useless and pointless joyride.It was the obviousness of it. Yeah, I realized later that was what you meant. My bad. :o

jab1
08-29-2001, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Heloise
I guess you're not from Southern California, where the police pull out their guns at the slightest excuse, in the hopes that they might get to kill someone/thing. Later, they can say they thought one of the kids pulled out a gun. Works IRL, anyway. ;)
How many LAPD cops does it take to change a light-bulb?

Two. One to shoot the bulb and another to testify that the bulb was armed.

The Great Gazoo
08-29-2001, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Fiver
Raiders of the Lost Ark: We're given to believe that Indy is able to ride the back of a U-Boat all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the island of Malta, without the sub ever submerging (during a secret mission) and drowning him, and without any Germans in the conning tower seeing him.


Awww, c'monnnnn! It's Indy!!! He can do anything!!! :D

The Great Gazoo (who yells "Do another Indy!" whenever he sees Harrison Ford on tv)

The Great Gazoo
08-29-2001, 05:34 PM
This leads me to Enemy at the Gates, which I recently rented. It is the true stroy of a Russian sniper and German sniper playing cat-an-mouse during the Battle of Stalingrad during WWII. Sounds interesting and suspenceful enough, doesn't it? No, you know what they decide the film needs? A LOVE TRIANGLE! Stop it already. Love triangles do not automtically make a film more interesting. The scenes invloving the girl slowed down the film and interupted the suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse the two snipers were playing with one another. And on top of which ....


****SPOILER FOR ENEMY AT THE GATES****
IRL, the Russian sniper pinpointed the German sniper by a glint of light off the German's scope. The Russian fired, and they later found the bullet had gone through the scope into the eye of the German sniper (so says the History Channel, a documentary of which promtped me to rent the film). The filmakers decide to twist the ending to resemble a Western showdown with the two of them standing, fully exposed to enemy fire in a trainyard.

Knowing the real life ending to the story spoiled the film version for me, since it didn't follow.

They used the wrong book for the movie - they should have used David Robbins' "War of the Rats" - this book makes a lot more sense.

I vaguely remember another movie named "Stalingrad", I think, that was a similar tale to this one - could have been a foreign flick.

jab1
08-29-2001, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Fiver
Raiders of the Lost Ark: We're given to believe that Indy is able to ride the back of a U-Boat all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the island of Malta, without the sub ever submerging (during a secret mission) and drowning him, and without any Germans in the conning tower seeing him.[/B]Did they ever say where the sub intercepted the steamer? It's possible they were still in the Mediterranean and the sub's journey could have been much shorter, only a few hours. (Remember, the trip began in Cairo, so they would have been sailing to Gibralter to get to America.) The submarine captain may have decided not to submerge for such a short trip.

In the Marvel comics adaptation of the movie, Indy tied himself to the periscope with his bullwhip. The periscope was never lowered (though I doubt this would have happened either). When they arrived at the island, Indy got off the sub and swam unnoticed into the base.

Baldwin
01-15-2004, 07:21 PM
Hitchcock's Vertigo is generally considered a classic. I agree, but there's something in the middle that really bugs me:
Jimmy Stewart's character is obsessed with a girl who looks just like the girl he fell in love with and lost. Is she the same girl? He can't be sure, and neither can we. Until -- she sits down and writes him a letter explaining the whole thing, a good half hour before the end of the movie. She throws the letter away, but now we know what Stewart doesn't, and the uneasy tension is lost. Now the only tension is about whether Stewart will figure it out. After he does, an intense scene explains everything we need to know. For the life of me, I don't know why the letter scene is in the movie.

Baldwin
01-16-2004, 12:02 AM
Okay... I didn't realize the last post in this thread was over two years old; just came across it when I was searching for something. Still...

Czarcasm
01-16-2004, 12:15 AM
Moving this antique to Cafe Society.

Lagged2Death
01-16-2004, 03:45 PM
[Lack of narration]... is exactly why I liked the Director's cut of Bladerunner over the screen version.

The intro narration, explaining about replicants in the far-flung future, was truly gag-inducing, but I didn't think Deckard's "internal monologue" style narration is nearly as bad as is generally made out to be. The Director's Cut does have a much cleaner noir-style ending, though.

One thing that always bugs me a little about Bladerunner, which is, don't get me wrong, one of my very favorite movies, is the prominent product-placement ads for real companies. They can be downright jarring (Atari doesn't really exist anymore, darn it!)

HPL
01-16-2004, 05:27 PM
[QUOTE=KJ]The other day I saw the movie The Cell, which just came out on Friday. FWIW, I recommend seeing the movie. It rocks. It might even become my favorite movie, now that I think of it...

Near the end of the movie, one of the characters must find a way to break a glass wall. There is water on the other side, so theoretically, if you broke the glass, the pressure from the water would instantly crash through the glass (I won't reveal anything else about the situation, because that would kind of spoil some of it.) He has a gun, so he shoots the glass 3 or 4 times. When that doesn't work, he picks up a pipe off the floor and smashes through the glass with it.

Now, I'm no scientist, but unless it was a really f**king heavy pipe, wouldn't you assume that a BULLET would have more force, in a more concentrated area, than the pipe?

[QUOTE]

I was annoyed by the fact that there was no reason at all for them to go inside the killers head. It never occured to the police to find out what companies make these huge, thick sheets of glass that would be able to hold that much water, and then do some cross-checking to see how it related to the killer and where he might have taken them? :rolleyes:

HPL
01-16-2004, 05:33 PM
[QUOTE=Pipeliner]I thought The Blair Witch Project was an okay movie (not a great one), but there were a couple of things that really irritated me about it (besides the character Heather).

1) You must have noticed which direction the stream was flowing when you walked into the bush. Once you find the stream, FOLLOW IT. How hard is that? Keep the stream in sight at all times, and FOLLOW IT.

[QUOTE]

I don't know if you were listening, but they did. They followed it for hours, and ended up at the exact same place.

I can't believe how many people miss that little detail.

HPL
01-16-2004, 05:37 PM
I thought the recent Titan A.E. was pretty cool all around, except for the small detail of the storyline. Kind of a big hurdle to overcome, but the movie's still neat to look at.
.

Just Curious, which detail?

I know it will likely seem obvious once I hear it, but right now I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Unless you are thinking of the incredible decision by one of the characters near the very end that, while nessacary, somewhat breaks suspension of disbelief(or borders on deus ex machina).

HPL
01-16-2004, 05:38 PM
(Atari doesn't really exist anymore, darn it!)

Actually, Atari does. If not, somebody is operating a website using their logo and name without their permission.

Kinthalis
01-16-2004, 05:58 PM
The stupid stupid idea of putting Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado About Nothing".

The stupid idea of putting Keanu Reeves in "Dangerous Liaisons".

Kinthalis
01-16-2004, 05:59 PM
Actually, Atari does. If not, somebody is operating a website using their logo and name without their permission.

Yep Publishing company Infogrammes bought Atari and now is using that label to publish games. (They were the publishers for Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR IIRC).

Belrix
01-16-2004, 06:04 PM
Because:

A) Toilets work through gravity, not through any sort of vacuum power. You can't just keep flushing them and empty more and more water from the room. If you'd like to test it, run a garden hose into your toilet bowl with the water on all the way, keep flushing your toilet, and count how many minutes until you really need to mop the floor. You can't just hold the handle down and watch water flow out of the room;
B) Toilets refill with water from the tank when you flush them anyway, and I seriously doubt Mr. Crazy Killer was dumb enough to put the shutoff valve inside the little room; and
C)Even if it could work, you couldn't start flushing to empty the room of water until it was high enough to be a danger anyway. The flow rate into the room would most likely still exceed the flush rate.

Well, not having seen the movie but I'll correct a two-year old posting...

A toilet would make a fine drain for a room filling with water, provided the drain pipe lead somewhere where there wasn't water and the fill rate didn't exceed the drain rate. The water would fill the room to the level of the bowl, then flow evenly down.

Prove it? Pour a bucket of water into a toilet. It goes nicely away without pushing the handle.

The toilet exit is just a bent pipe afterall.

Lagged2Death
01-16-2004, 06:05 PM
Actually, Atari does. If not, somebody is operating a website using their logo and name without their permission.

Well, just to wander far off topic for a moment... The Atari of today (http://www.atari.com/) is really a large French video games publisher called Infogrames, which purchased the Atari name (http://corporate.infogrames.com/corp_history.php) as a part of its Hasbro acquisition in 2000. Nothing of the original company is left, save the name and logo. I gnash my teeth when I see that logo in the stores, not that it does any good.

sturmhauke
01-16-2004, 06:09 PM
The original Atari was a hot company (http://www.videogamecritic.net/5200.htm) when Blade Runner was made (1982) (http://imdb.com/title/tt0083658/).

Cervaise
01-17-2004, 05:21 AM
Wow, ancient thread.Just Curious, which detail?By "small detail of the storyline," I was being sarcastic: referring to the storyline as a whole as a detail to which the filmmakers should have devoted more time. The overall plot couldn't have been more generic if it came in a white can labeled in big black letters "STORY."

Balle_M
01-17-2004, 02:20 PM
I used to wonder about this, but at that time, submarines were far more efficient on the surface. They would cruise to wherever they were going and then submerge to attack. They couldn't stay submerged all that long without running out of battery power. So the U-Boat would have stayed on the surface the whole time, especially since this was prior to the war, and thus there was no reason to hide from anyone.

Yes, but there would be at least one officer and a lookout on deck when they were running on the surface.