I agree. Weygand would be a tiny error in the movie due to rapidly changing events, like a movie released in October 1974 having American federal prison officials talking about a pardon signed by Nixon (when it should be Ford). DeGaulle would be like the officials talking about documents signed by Khrushchev
In The Princess Bride, Vizzini isn’t trying to logically reason out which goblet has the poison in it. He was watching The Man in Black’s reactions to what he was saying. You’ll notice that The Man in Black tenses up whenever Vizzini says that the poison is in his own cup, and relaxes whenever he says that it’s in the other cup. From there, Vizzini just had to figure out whether The Man in Black was bluffing or double-bluffing (or more precisely, even-bluffing or odd-bluffing), which was something he was quite good at.
Just, you know, not quite good enough.
Why would he tense up at all when he knows the poison is in both glasses? I always thought he gave it away by appearing impatient while Vizzini continued to talk on and on.
My movie pet peeve… that Shawshank Redemption is regarded by many as some sort of classic. It’s a decent to good film, but not great. I don’t consider it worth multiple viewings.
Interesting. How do you feel about Return of the King? I ask because they’re both considered top tennish films, but there’s also an air of populism about their high ranking. If that makes sense.
Of course, now I can say that I don’t think Strasser would actually care if the letters of transit were signed by Hitler himself. They’d take Lazlo out behind the barn and report “shot while escaping”, with a bonus of “letters? What letters? We didn’t see no steenkeng letters.” Thinking otherwise is to drift into sovcit thinking
I think that’s a much larger plot hole. But I don’t care! I love the film.
Not sure my opinion is valid on that one because I never cared for any of the movies made from Tolkien’s books. I file those under fine if they were to one’s taste, and I imagine they’re very entertaining for those people. Just not my thing.
But when it comes to Shawshank I’ve always felt it was way overrated and I don’t really know how it got that way. As I say, I don’t think it’s a bad film, just not great. Morgan Freeman’s performance is the best part for me.
I think of it is a being in a similar league with films like Hunt for Red October, In the Line of Fire and a few others that are quite entertaining, but wouldn’t be considered classics in the same way as the Godfather, say.
French General Henri Giraud was captured and shipped to Germany during the invasion of 1940. He managed to escape captivity and make his way to Unoccupied France. The Germans demanded his return, but the Vichy government refused to extradite him. Hitler let the matter slide because he needed their cooperation in securing the Mediterranean.
So it’s feasible that Laszlo would remain unmolested in December 1941, so long as he was trapped in Casablanca.
In The Birdcage, Hank Azaria’s character is named “Agador,” not “Agador Spartacus.” Armand only calls him that as a hasty cover-up after forgetting to call him “Spartacus” (his fake name while posing as a Greek butler):
Agador! - Spartacus! - Agador Spartacus! …. he insists on being called by his full name.
For me, regarding Shawshank…I already felt the novella was the best thing King had ever done. So when I heard the casting (despite Freeman not being Irish), I thought it was brilliant casting, I was a huge fan of Robbins at that point. Throw in the great soundtrack, and well…for me, I thought it was a perfect movie. But I went in very favorbly biased for it. I imagine a lot of people felt the same way.
Because he doesn’t want Vizzini to realize that. He’s showing Vizzini what he expects to see, so he’ll go ahead with the game that he thinks he’s winning.
I think I misunderstood you initially. You’re saying he tensed up as a bluff - I see that now. But I think my point also stands that he unintentionally seemed impatient, which Vizzini did not pick up on. Was that scene in the book? If so, how did it go there?
How would the Gestapo have found Marion if they hadn’t followed Indy to Nepal?
I have often heard that people thought Indiana Jones was immortal because he drank from the Holy Grail at the end of Last Crusade.
The movie makes it clear you have to keep drinking from it and it can not cross the seal. We see him leave it behind. He obviously isn’t immortal.
This was even more common before they made a fourth and fifth movie.
People commonly seem to insist that Patrick Bateman in American Psycho was hallucinating either all or part of the movie which is only extremely tenuously supported by the movie and, more importantly, completely ruins the artistic intent of the movie.
[Spoiler warning for a 20+ year old film/book follows]
On the somewhat plausible side of the “hallucination” theory is the ATM machine that tells him to feed it a kitten and the cop car blowing up after being shot by a single bullet but there’s several points brought up commonly that are just plain misreadings of the movie.
People bring up as proof that Paul Allen isn’t murdered by a banker near the end of the movie saying he just saw Paul in London last week but an entire throughline of the movie is that everyone is constantly mistaking one person for another because they all look and act so similar.
People also bring up that the apartment being clean when Bateman returns is also proof that the murder didn’t happen but the scene is incredibly obvious when you are looking for the subtext. The real estate agent stumbled upon the grisly murder scene in Paul Allen’s apartment and rather than report it to the police and suffer from a drop in value due to the bad press, cleaned up the entire apartment and put it back on the market for a profit. She realizes she’s staring into the face of the guy who committed the murder and she stares him down like a stone cold fox because she knows she can control him and she’s in no danger.
It drives me mad because that’s easily the best scene in the movie and is a needle sharp skewering of 80’s Reaganite capitalism and people keep on insisting on a far less interesting interpretation of the scene, largely because Mary Harron made a couple of choices at the end of the film that pushed believability too far.
I still maintain that the “Psycho” in American Psycho was never Patrick Bateman, but the society around him that has allowed him to move through society with such ease and that’s always what made it such a classic literary piece. That people reduce it down to cool suits and funny catchphrases and the business card scene makes me sad for media literacy.
The film shows the Nazi’s are dedicating immense amount of resources to the project, finding Marion would have been hard but they were already in the process of searching for her so they probably would have found her eventually.
In Nepal?
Also, an interpretation I’ve never seen expounded on anywhere else but there are several specific cinematic techniques used in “Perfume: Story of a Murderer” which clearly display an artistic intent at portraying Jean-Baptiste Grenouille as the good guy at the end of the movie and the entire point of the film is to ask the question of under what moral framework can this interpretation be justified?
[Again, Spoiler Alert for a 15+ year old film]
There’s two incredibly tropey scenes in the movie that are hilariously subverted: The first being when Grenouille meets face to face with the last woman for his perfume and she stares innocently up at him and then there is a slow fade to white and we are meant to believe that the power of innocence and beauty has tamed the beast and nope, the next shot is of her dead and him unchanged in his quest.
The second is when the father confronts Grenouille in the town square and we are meant to believe that the power of grief has overcome the intoxicating effects of his perfume but then nope again, he succumbs just like everyone else.
Both of these scenes are obvious to me in artistic intent to specifically play with the tropes of cinema to deny the obvious interpretation that either of these two should be thought of as the heros in the story and thus you are left with the only conclusion that Grenouille is portrayed as justified in his act.
The ending of the movie is also very deliberate, it is shown that Grenouille is eaten at the end and thus all knowledge of the perfume is lost to humanity forever and the last drop of the perfume dropping and dissolving into the air is the very last shot.
I believe what the film is obviously asking is for us to consider whether and how beauty has value beyond its instrumental value. The most beautiful perfume existed for a brief instance in time, then it stopped existing, everyone who ever knew about its existence were explicitly shown as forgetting about it and it has no further impact on the world beyond it’s short existence. The cost of its existence was terrible but could the beauty of something ever be so great as to intrinsically be worth the cost?
To me, watching the movie, everything about its construction points to this as the obvious intent of the movie and yet I’ve never seen anyone else lay out this interpretation.
It was Lori Petty. Sorry, I just hate that commonly-held belief. 
IMDB?
But closed captioning is often in error.
Ignorance on my own behalf…
The “Minnie The Moocher” segment in The Blues Brothers was a total fantasy. The bandstand, the white suits. Took me forever to wrap my head around that. So well done, it just slips by you…