Palmerin
-
Posts
975 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Palmerin
-
-
... when Varinia says farewell to Spartacus, a lady asked out loud: IS THIS WHERE THEY CRUCIFY CHRIST?
As the introduction makes clear, Kubrick's movie is set in the 1st Century BC; I think, however, that the lady understood very well the message of the film since S is clearly represented as a Christ-like figure who dies so that all men and women may be free.
-
Isn't it annoying how space aliens all look alike, as if they were all children of the same father and the same mother???
In an scene of STAR TREK, there is a close up of Mr Spook. The camera recedes, and eventually a whole bunch of Vulcans are seen--AND ALL OF THEM, INCLUDING THE FEMALES, LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE SOUR FACED MR S!
Could it be that the Vulcans and all other alien races procreate in the same manner as ants and bees?
-
This is what Wiki has to say: Another inspiration (for the film) may have been Fred Barker and Arthur Barker, notorious gangsters of the 1930s famously devoted to their domineering mother, Ma Barker.
Family love gone all twisted is a really tragic thing.
-
Yes, I'm not sure either audiences would have accepted Audrey as a villainess. Perhaps a chic James Bond like Mata Hara type. I'm sure she could have played one, but unsure audiences at the time would've accepted her as one......
I think of someone more subtle: a manipulatress who uses her innocent looks and demure manner to maneuver others into doing her bidding, just like Iago taking advantage of the weaknesses of Othello.
-
Who here said they believed all the various conspiracy theories as outlined in the fictional film JFK? I don't recall anyone saying that but if they did I would agree that would be loony. But Stone did NOT do anything illegal since the film is clearly fictional. You really don't understand 1st amendment rights as it relates to fictional movies.
Anyhow at least you admit it is you that is obsessed here with JFK.
The HISTORY CHANNEL and other similar networks are so obsessed with the 35th POTUS that every November they dedicate specials to the events of JFK, Oswald, and Ruby. 'tis almost as if Saint Cecilia's place as the saint of 22 Nov has been taken over by K.
-
Like the Audrey thread, you go off in the most irrelevant directions. Cody Jarrett is the character from the film White Heat. He is a gangster \ criminal and his mom is part of his gang.
I thought you referred to VALERIE JARRETT and her kin.
Is it true that Ma Jarrett is based on Ma Barker?
-
Certain topics (politics being one), once they begin, they never seem to end and can derail any thread. That's part of the reason why I tend to ignore them and get back to the interesting parts of a discussion.
Good. Do you think AH could have played a villainess--a Holly Golightly gone REALLY BAD, full of deviousness and malevolence?
-
Maybe I should ask what that has to do with Audrey Hepburn?
Remember the post about Hepburn telling the production staff of MY FAIR LADY about his death?
It certainly seems that AH recovered from that shock and moved on with her life. That is very hard to do; my grandmother never quite got over the death of one of her daughters, who was in frail health all her life and died at childbirth.
-
I assume you also don't like the Jarrett family.
People like the Kims of N Korea, the Assads of Syria, the Gandhis of India, the Duvaliers of Haiti, the Trujillos of the Dominican Republic, and the Somozas of Nicaragua are proof that not all political dynasties are worthy of admiration.
-
Again, the only person here obsessed with the death of either Kennedy is YOU.
My obsession is with the foolish people who believe the fantasies of Stoned-Out-Of-His-Gourd.
There is a sequence in JFK where Donald Sutherland tells Kevin Costner about a huge conspiracy against the 35th POTUS--an accusation made out of whole cloth, because there is no proof of it.
Speaking in legalese, Stoned-Out-Of-His-Gourd engaged there in suborning perjury=fabricating false evidence.
Go and read RECLAIMING HISTORY by Vincent Bugliosi, which is a very enlightening book.
-
But I could also point out that the only person bringing up any of these deaths is you.
Because of lost souls like Oliver Stone, who are convinced that EVERYBODY IN THE PLANET conspired to get Kennedy dead, a delirium that no one has ever proven.
My mother cried over the death of K, and her father lamented the death of FDR. Neither, however, obsessed over those deaths, and they moved on with their lives.
-
I'm not frozen in 1963 by any means. Someone mentioned Audrey singing Happy Birthday to JFK and I mentioned what I knew about Audrey's connections to JFK (true or rumor). Your comment was rude and uncalled for.
Would you rather I lie?
The USA got over the deaths of WH Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding and FDR; why doesn't the USA do the same with JFK and RFK?
-
I seem to remember reading that somewhere, but I thought it was on the phone? There are rumors Audrey and JFK had an affair in his bachelor days. Audrey was not Catholic, so there was no possibility of marriage. I do know that Audrey Hepburn made the announcement on the set of My Fair Lady that JFK was assassinated. No one could bring themselves to speak, so she made the announcement and the cast and crew stopped filming that day.
Why are the people of the USA frozen in 1963, as if the death of Kennedy were the end of history? Why does the Democratic Party keep nominating presidential candidates whose sole qualification is a totally nonexistent resemblance to JFK?
In 1963 I was nine years old, and I have no memory of K; the succeeding Presidents weren't much more memorable. The first POTUS that really made an impression on me was Reagan, whose warm personality and eloquence truly resembled those attributed to K. You ever wondered what K would have looked like if he had reached old age? Just look at RR; he looks more like JFK than either of his brothers.
-
OK, here is the violence that really galls me: the abusive usage of the noble term FAMILY to describe subhuman sewage like the Gambinos and the Luccheses. As an aficionado of history and genealogy, I prefer to restrict FAMILY to refer to aristocratic dynasties like the Bourbons, and republican dynasties like the Roosevelts of New York state. People like that give honor to the term FAMILY, not opprobrium like the Corleones.
From CRACKED's parody of THE ODDFATHER:
Kay: Michael, are you in trouble with the law?
M: No, the law is in trouble with us.
-
Really? If that is true, My respect for his family increased 10 fold. I love broccoli and my local organic market has it on sale this week for 98 cents a pound! (it typically is $3.99).
I love broccoli--all smothered in butterscotch.
-
Well, there's nothing to say to that, except that of course you're entitled to your opinion.
Oh, hell, actually I do have something to say to it.
While I dislike watching some of the violence depicted in The Godfather, I have to say, I've seen a lot worse. I don't watch violent movies for their violence; but often, the film has something further to offer. If that's the case, then I accept the fact that there's going to be some difficult scenes - sometimes I avert my eyes. But if the film is good, I don't let the violence in it stop me from wanting to see it.
Also: I'll say it again ( already said in a previous post), that in fact the characters in The Godfather - at least those whose point-of-view is presented to the audience - (the Corleone family and their loyal supporters and henchmen) - are presented somewhat sympathetically. I kind of like quite a few of them. Coppola ( and writer Mario Puzo) make a point of showing us these people up close, not just when they're carrying out their terrible actions, but also when they're attending a family wedding, making spaghetti, discussing family matters. They make jokes, they kiss their wives and children, they revere their elders.
I'm not justifying what they do, I'm just saying, one of the strengths of this movie is the way it gets you inside the main characters' heads and elicits at least a little sympathy for them. At least, I kind of like and sympathize with them. A bit. Not when they're dumping someone in the Hudson river, of course.
Palmerin, if you're upset and revulsed by the Corleones and their people, I imagine you don't watch many crime films, or maybe any films with violence.
BUTCHER A POOR INNOCENT HORSE--not like the Lufthansa heist crooks in GOODFELLAS, who should have known better than to live a life that was likely to get them killed.
-
So what. He still wasn't a studio-era movie star.
The Broccolis are very influential, regardless of all the jokes about having the name of a vegetable.
-
Maybe one also needs to be a studio-era star. Moore had some minor film roles prior to 1969 but he was mostly a T.V. Star during the 60s until he got the Bond gig.
A gig during which he was one of the 10 Top Earning Movie Stars.
-
Where is the REMEMBERING ROGER MOORE tribute? Everybody is waiting for the rain swept car front window!
-
'tis really a pity that AH never played a villainess. Just imagine her impish playful smile and eyes applied to a malevolent professional assassin similar to the one played by Ruby Rose in JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 2!
-
You're oversimplifying. If The Godfather were merely a straightforward study of gangsters in the 1940s, with a black and white "these characters are good, these others are bad" sensibility, it would not be the great film that it is.
Part of what makes it such an interesting and thought-provoking story is the way the audience is allowed to get inside these characters' heads, to see the way they justify and rationalize what they do - and also, to see that many of them actually do have a "good" - or at least, less evil - side to them. One of the many things The Godfather is, is an examination of how otherwise seemingly "normal" people can develop a code of ethics that justifies doing evil things - and to them, it's perfectly normal.
There are few characters in film who change as much as Michael Corleone does. Watching this young man go from a decent person who deplores what the rest of his family does, to someone who begins to understand and support what they do, to a ruthless gangster who feels justified standing godfather to his sister's baby while he knows that baby's father is being murdered upon his orders is a profoundly disturbing and thought-provoking cinematic experience.
The critics in PR--a very snobbish lot--made a very big deal about what a grand accomplishment it was for Coppola to depict these subhuman miscreants as ,,human beings''. After watching these ,,human beings'' butcher a poor innocent horse, I thought that I would be better off in the jungle, living with the jackals, the wolves and the hyennas.
-
Well ethics and morals are very important to me as well, and I think the scene nicely demonstrates Michael's corruption.
That's just it: just about everybody in this trilogy is evil and corrupt, while the very few sympathetic characters, such as Troy Donahue, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire, are pitiful and ineffectual.
-
As someone for whom ethics and morals are very important, I cannot admire a movie in which the solemn holy occasion of a christening is juxtaposed with gory scenes of murderous violence.
-
Roger Moore was an underrated Bond, he was not as good as Connery (but neither were the others), unfortunately he was in some of the worst Bond films (Moonraker, A View To A Kill). Moore was great with a quip and could be tough when called for it.
My favorite Moore Bond film is "Octopussy", it is a non stop thrill ride with action, jokes and sexy ladies, all you could want from 007. He has some good adversaries in it also, including a pair of knife throwing twins, who kill Bond's fellow agent 009 in an early scene. Moore has one of his toughest moments when he coldly dispatches one of the twins with a well thrown knife.("And THAT'S for 009!")
007: Surely you cannot be inviting a nuclear war! What happens when the USA retaliates?!
General Orlov: Against WHOM?
007: My God, of course: our early warning system will eliminate the possibility of that bomb having been launched from Russia, or anywhere else! Everyone will assume, incorrectly, that it was an American bomb detonated accidentally.
General O: That would be the most plausible explanation.
007: Europe will insist on unilateral disarmament, leaving its borders undefended for you to run across at will. And it doesn't matter a damn to you, I suppose, that tens of thousands of innocent people will die in this nuclear accident of yours!
-
1
-
Plot holes in movies that you've only just noticed?
in General Discussions
Posted
Christopher Lee was a direct descendant of Charlemagne, who, according to contemporary descriptions and an equestrian figurine, was corpulent, with a chubby face and blond hair; Lee, as everybody knows, was tall and lean, with a long sharp face and dark hair.