RoboCop (though it was shooting through a womans clothing to hit the gunman behind her)
James Bond (one of the films Bond shoots through someones shoulder to hit the gunman)
John McClane (believe this is the climatic end to the final stand-off in one of the later films)
You’re probably thinking of Die Another Day. A gunman is standing behind M. Bond shoots her, causing the gunman to step back, and then he’s shot two more times. Then Q steps in and reveals that the whole thing is a VR training exercise.
Thought of another one: Fierce Creatures. It’s not as beloved as A Fish Called Wanda, for which it’s kind of an unofficial follow-up (same four leads and a lot of in-joke references to the first one). It’s one of those films that feels very patchwork, as the original director, Robert Young, couldn’t come back to do reshoots after bad test screenings, and Fred Schepisi came on to finish it. You can see the seams, it’s easy to spot scenes that were shot much later than the material on either side of them. Oddly enough, I’ve always found it a mostly enjoyable flick with some hilarious moments, if a tad flimsy.
But it all collapses in the last act, when for whatever dumb plot reasons, everyone starts running around yelling a lot and “hey look at me we’re being zany” which is a dynamic that just makes me cringe. No idea if the climax was one of the old or new scenes, but it’s just kind of embarrassing on a stupid sitcom contrivance level.
I have seen several versions of Blade Runner, and every version is something like 8~10 minutes longer than it should be. The scene on the roof in the rain should have the credits start to roll over it, with some score and inaudible dialog between Deckard and Gaff and fade out. There is no other good way to end the movie.
Agreed. There is nothing particularly important after Ray’s final speech. But there was nothing particularly offensive other.
It’s been so long since I read the novel please refresh me as to what the whole Star Child sequence is about according to Clarke?
Thank you.
The star child was Dave Bowman’s apotheosis, of sorts. It was Dave, and he had Og-like power. The last line was something to the effect “He did not know what to do next. But he would think of something.”
(bearing in mind that I have also not read it in about that long, but I have a pretty good memory for Clarke)
Cool. Thank you.
Yeah, Clarke explained in the novel that the alien beings who created the Star Gate (the monolith near Saturn/Jupiter) had evolved from being corporeal to becoming beings of pure energy. Bowman’s transformation at the end was him being made into a being of pure energy as well.
The novel also has an explanation for what the Star Gate was: it was a device created to travel great distances across the universe. Clarke’s description of Bowman’s journey through the Star Gate is actually even cooler, in my opinion, than the psychedelic sequence from the movie.
And thus it was “full of stars”.
Thanks.
Plus, (according to the book Lost Worlds of 2001) when the Star Child arrives, a massive nuclear weapons exchange is about to take place. Arthur C. Clarke wrote that the Star Child prevents the war by “cleansing the world” of the weapons. Later on he reconsidered and said that the Star Child might have decided more drastic action - and taken the same type of action of Odysseus towards the suitors and handmaidens at the end of the original Odyssey.
Just think of seeing all of this in the theater without the underlying explanation given in the book - and trying to figure out what is happening.
This week I have been rewatching the Back To The Future trilogy before it goes away from Netflix at the end of the month. I have never seen all three movies back to back to back. And unfortunately the trilogy has earned a place in this thread. WTF is up with that flying, time-traveling steam locomotive at the end of BTTF3? It seems that so many technological plot points were worked out fairly well. Maybe they were not realistic but at least they were internally consistent. Then Doc Brown shows up from the past in that ridiculous thing. How the hell could he have possibly built something like that with 1880s tech?
[Deleted]
A.I. Artificial Intelligence was an excellent movie all the way up until the tacked on, feel good aliens ending.
I thought the same thing, until it was pointed out on this Board that the “aliens” are supposed to be highly developed robots.
a lot of people thought so, too. Critics said that it might have been because Spielberg made so many movies with aliens (especially E.T.), but that’s absurd. The trope of future aliens digging through the detritus of human civilization is a well-established one, and the things at the end didn’t look like robots or the obvious descendants of the ones in the movie. The argument that you didn’t “need” to assume the existence of aliens isn’t very convincing – people don’t go for the most parsimonious explanation, but the one that appears most likely. and those things didn’t look at all like robots.
Robot archeologists makes more sense than aliens but it would still be a tacked-on, feel-good ending. I always felt the studio just could not have such a cute kid end the movie at the bottom of the ocean and something had to be done. Or Spielberg has happy ending disease.
From my recollection, doc says he’s goin adventurin with his new wife, exits scene, then next thing he has the super train. My read of that, was that he’d already had some or all of those adventures and had come back for a cool farewell.
Not sure if this actually fits, I don’t remember so well, and I don’t want to spoil the fun by googling the synopsis.
I wasn’t happy with the ending of the movie, either, but I wouldn’t call the total extinction of humanity “feel-good”, per se.
Aliens or robots or the sun going all red giant, on the time scale the movie implies humanity is done for no matter what. But I do see what you mean. Kinda.
Because it’s an impressive image. As to how he built it, use your imagination, because is had nothing at all to do with anything.