Absolutely. The Erik Lensherr, Nazi Hunter parts of that movie were just awesome.
This is something that drives me nuts in media, where a moral conflict has been set up where you’re going “are you nuts, kill him!” but the movie treats it like some horrible act.
Shaw definitely deserved to die, painfully, but Erik slowly and gratuitously inflicting that pain on Charles as well was a dick move. I know Erik couldn’t have killed Shaw without Charles immobilizing him, but he could have been kinder to his friend by doing it quickly. The scene was meant to illustrate that Erik was more motivated by revenge than anything else. Even Erik putting on the helmet to silence Charles was symbolic of him blocking out his conscience.
On top of that, Erik even says that he agrees with Shaw’s desire to wipe out humanity, and that the only reason he was killing Shaw was because Shaw killed his mother. If Erik hadn’t been personally wronged by Shaw, he’d have probably teamed up with him, regardless of what a monster Shaw was. Erik was doing the right thing the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.
Well, they are the antagonists of the movie, especially the gorillas, who do abuse humans and are warlike.
Dr. Zaius also says this:
Seems like a valid observation, since man used nuclear war to destroy his own civilization.
Actually, looking at the IMDB quote page, the movie has several good ones:
I’d never thought about that. Watchmen is the greatest.
In that last scene, Ozymandias tells the others they’re morally “in checkmate,” and they agree that since it looks like his plan is working and exposing it would only bring about more harm, they should say nothing. Rorschach just doesn’t think in those terms. He believes it’s acceptable to kill people who do evil, but he doesn’t accept that you can trade some lives for others. And he thinks evil must always be punished no matter what it costs.
Ardent Star Trek canonists will be along to correct the fine points here, but I think Admiral Marcus had a good point in Into Darkness: The Klingons are coming, and the Federation was not prepared to fight them. Trying to start the war before they had a fully battle-ready fleet was not a brilliant plan, but starting to prepare for a war was.
IMDB also relays great trivia about that last quote: censors objected to the profanity, and Charlton Heston explained, no, he’s literally calling on God to damn them.
He also had a very demonstrable one about how with just a hint of chaos “those civilized people will *eat *each other”.
One can’t deny that the black prisoner on the convict boat tossing the detonator overboard was exceptional (and, even more exceptionally, wasn’t immediately shanked for his good deed) but on the ostensibly even more “civilized” boat it was all “murder them all, fuck 'em, they’re bad people anyway !”. The only reason they didn’t “eat” the convicts wasn’t civilization or noble spirit or anything of the sort, but craven cowardice as nobody wants to be the one to push the button and bear that tiny bit of responsibility. Even when the overwhelming majority agrees it’s the right thing to do.
That’s not “being capableee of gooood”, Batman, that’s being terminally incapable.
Well, he’d know, having played Moses.
I’ll go further and point out that the Joker is right that Batman really should be able to kill him, but can’t because of his rule(s). Let’s look at this exchange in the movie. I’ll break it apart.
Batman catches Joker from falling to his death.
How does Batman reply? Does he address the issue? No. He replies.
The Joker loves this and gives his final really valid point. Based on his actions, Batman may be clearly insane too. He dresses up like a bat, fights crime, but won’t kill to stop it. The joker replies(I’ll break up his replies to highlight his valid point).
And ends with:
It’s not a perfect movie, but the Joker is really well written.
I thought this trivia item was pretty funny:
I can just picture some hippie in the 60’s looking over and thinking he shouldn’t have eaten the brown acid.
‘Our Man Flint’ was a James Bond rip-off made in the 60s starring James Coburn. In it he battles a super villainous organisation (to quote IMDB) - ‘known as GALAXY whose scientists are looking to pacify the world and devote humankind to scientific pursuits’.
It’s a rubbish movie all round, as well.
Disagree completely. While it was clearly a double-fake out to the audience of course, there was a point. Those people also had their One Rule, and in the end weren’t willing to take other people’s lives in order to spare their own. Both sides act for a moment like they’re going to do the logical thing - and both Mr. Corporate Guy and Mr. Big Gorram Prisoner give their reasons. The specifics are rather irrelevant - it comes down to them or us in both cases. Except neither one is willing to do it. They’d both rather die than give in to the Joker’s plan. And that’s not cowardice. The Joker had his point. And then it’s over. He lost - this time at least. That is, he may have a point, but he didn’t win the argument. Not yet.
However, perhaps one day we’ll have a sequal to that film. I can’t imagine what such a sequel would be like, but I’m sure it would really really good and not rely on poorly-developed characters and meaningless plot twists to push thigns along without ever going anywhere or really resolving anything while totally flubbing the major themes of the firs two films. Nosirree.
It was supposed to be a parody. And its sequel, “In Like Flint,” was even worse.
See, but Batman knows and understands all that perfectly. He KNOWS he is fucked up in the head, that is the reason for his refusal to kill, not a symptom of it.
“Open Range” is unclaimed land, and “Free Graze” outfits like the protagonist’s could use them as they saw fit.
Baxter (and other large ranchers) most likely also used “Open Range” to feed more cattle than they could support just on their own privately owned lands alone.
Thus the conflict: Baxter wants the “Open Range” his own self, most likely (though not explicitly stated in the movie) to feed his excess cattle, and figures he can muscle a “Free Graze” outfit like Boss Spearman’s.
Gun rights have nothing to do with this. Privately inventing and possessing a technological advancement such as the Iron Man suit is unprecedented, and should be treated delicately. The government has no right except for the fact that other similar suits have now shown up at that point in the movie. Since it is apparent that other countries now have access to similar technology, it is only right that they should be allowed to stay ahead of the curve. I also want to add that the government wanting the iron man suit is not a villainous act and they are not an enemy.
The company i work for has contracts with the government and they are handled the same as any other contract. For example: the government agrees to buy $5 million worth of product over certain period of time, and we agree to provide said product according to the timeline they require. They can’t legally confiscate anything from us unless it were specified for some reason in the contract. They by no means can confiscate material from our company that falls outside of our contracts with them. And they certainly can’t confiscate the founder’s son’s personal inventions.
Eh I liked it, it is a gentle parody of James Bond superspy crap. It is kind of funny if you’ve seen too many of those movies. The funny thing is movies were coming out years later similar to OMF that were NOT parodies:eek:
Indeed, but the way they actually get it (i.e. Rhodey showing up, beating up drunk Tony for a bit then going “You know what, fuck you and fuck your wishes, I’m taking that Warmachine that’s still very much Stark Industries property and handing it over for the guys in green to reverse engineer”) was… well, perhaps not villainous, but a novel take on the concept of “military appropriations” to be sure 
Also while possessing an Iron Man suit is indeed unprecedented, albeit inherently *profoundly *illegal on account of breaking many many laws of physics :); possessing a tank, self-propelled artillery gun or a combat jet is not. Private persons do own those… and the government says “Not unless it’s entirely de-militarized, son”.
Lol yeah, Rhodey definitely wasn’t acting on behalf of the government “officially” when he took the suit like that.
And my mistake then. I guess they did have some legal foothold in there somewhere, unless Rhodey was just saying that bc he knew Tony wouldn’t do anything about it. lol Not sure how that works legally, there must have been dozens of already existing patented inventions built into the suit. Could definitely complicate things.