lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Jul 24, 2021 19:05:54 GMT
Three endings to three movies bothered me this week and it is important that you are notified as to why:
Act of Violence (1948): Robert Ryan experiences no consequences for initiating a series of actions that lead to the death of Van Heflin and the shattering of his family. The final scene has someone say "who will tell his wife" (about Heflin's death) and Ryan says "I will". This made me incredibly angry as his suddenly taking responsibility is incredibly hypocritical.
Woman of the Dunes (1964): at the end of this movie the prisoner decides to stay with the sand villagers- despite the fact that they held other people hostage and should be brought to justice. And what about his own worried friends and family? This guy is a loser!
Bullitt (1968): Maybe I missed something, but it would seem that the mob won and the mob connected senator also won by having a key witness killed. Maybe Bullitt should have aimed his bullet lower and brought the hood to the courthouse to testify.
Bonus: Blow Up (1966) what is the ending? why are the police never called by this guy at any time in the movie? (the mime tennis match was more satisfying)
Maybe these movies aren't for those who have a strong sense of justice
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jul 24, 2021 20:18:47 GMT
Bastard Out of Carolina (1996)
A young girl is physically abused by her mother's new boyfriend. Jenna Malone delivers a superb performance as the tragic victim in a movie that is not for the squeamish.
The final scene between her and her mother, followed by the child's voice over, is a jaw dropper and had me practically kicking the television. All the more amazing because it was directed by Anjelica Huston.
Don't want to give away anything about this movie, but those who have seen it will understand why.
It was on Youtube a while ago, may still be. I have a copy, but I can only watch it after a considerable lapse of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jul 24, 2021 22:35:17 GMT
A Few Good Men - I cannot accept the idea that a marine colonel lost his cool on the stand and all but indicted himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jul 24, 2021 22:39:22 GMT
And didn't Henry F. Potter get away with swiping the eight thousand dollars from the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan?
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jul 24, 2021 22:50:53 GMT
Three endings to three movies bothered me this week and it is important that you are notified as to why: Act of Violence (1948): Robert Ryan experiences no consequences for initiating a series of actions that lead to the death of Van Heflin and the shattering of his family. The final scene has someone say "who will tell his wife" (about Heflin's death) and Ryan says "I will". This made me incredibly angry as his suddenly taking responsibility is incredibly hypocritical. Woman of the Dunes (1964): at the end of this movie the prisoner decides to stay with the sand villagers- despite the fact that they held other people hostage and should be brought to justice. And what about his own worried friends and family? This guy is a loser! Bullitt (1968): Maybe I missed something, but it would seem that the mob won and the mob connected senator also won by having a key witness killed. Maybe Bullitt should have aimed his bullet lower and brought the hood to the courthouse to testify. Bonus: Blow Up (1966) what is the ending? why are the police never called by this guy at any time in the movie? (the mime tennis match was more satisfying) Maybe these movies aren't for those who have a strong sense of justice Is your surname Hays, by any chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jul 24, 2021 22:58:53 GMT
If you have a strong sense of justice, avoid real life (and movies depicting real life). They will upset you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 24, 2021 23:06:39 GMT
Bullitt (1968): Maybe I missed something, but it would seem that the mob won and the mob connected senator also won by having a key witness killed. Maybe Bullitt should have aimed his bullet lower and brought the hood to the courthouse to testify. Chalmers was neither a senator nor connected to the mob. He was merely a political aspirant who, working for the Senate subcommittee on organized crime (probably as Special Council), had hoped to springboard into public office by arranging for an informant to testify. Being too clever by half was Chalmers's undoing, as he was so easily duped by both the real mob figure and the impersonator hired to take his place. Bullitt, on the other hand, had become so obsessed with tracking down the real informant and tripping up Chalmers that he found himself in the end victim to the very dehumanization that his girlfriend Cathy had warned him about: "With you, living with violence is a way of life. Living with violence and death. How can you be part of it without becoming more and more callous?"
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jul 24, 2021 23:21:26 GMT
Bullitt (1968): Maybe I missed something, but it would seem that the mob won and the mob connected senator also won by having a key witness killed. Maybe Bullitt should have aimed his bullet lower and brought the hood to the courthouse to testify. Chalmers was neither a senator nor connected to the mob. He was merely a political aspirant who, working for the Senate subcommittee on organized crime (probably as Special Council), had hoped to springboard into public office by arranging for an informant to testify. Being too clever by half was Chalmers's undoing, as he was so easily duped by both the real mob figure and the impersonator hired to take his place. Bullitt, on the other hand, had become so obsessed with tracking down the real informant and tripping up Chalmers that he found himself in the end victim to the very dehumanization that his girlfriend Cathy had warned him about: "With you, living with violence is a way of life. Living with violence and death. How can you be part of it without becoming more and more callous?" Thanks (yet again) Doghouse. Over fifty years since I watched Bullitt, but I sensed something was wrong with Lune7000's analysis. I never thought it was a film worth watching twice in the same millenium, but now we have moved to a new one, I will seek it out again to see if my sense of justice is offended.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 25, 2021 0:40:31 GMT
A Few Good Men - I cannot accept the idea that a marine colonel lost his cool on the stand and all but indicted himself. Really? Perhaps you can't handle the truth!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 25, 2021 2:21:48 GMT
Bullitt (1968): Maybe I missed something, but it would seem that the mob won and the mob connected senator also won by having a key witness killed. Maybe Bullitt should have aimed his bullet lower and brought the hood to the courthouse to testify. Chalmers was neither a senator nor connected to the mob. He was merely a political aspirant who, working for the Senate subcommittee on organized crime (probably as Special Council), had hoped to springboard into public office by arranging for an informant to testify. Being too clever by half was Chalmers's undoing, as he was so easily duped by both the real mob figure and the impersonator hired to take his place. Bullitt, on the other hand, had become so obsessed with tracking down the real informant and tripping up Chalmers that he found himself in the end victim to the very dehumanization that his girlfriend Cathy had warned him about: "With you, living with violence is a way of life. Living with violence and death. How can you be part of it without becoming more and more callous?" An excellent summing up, Doghouse. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jul 25, 2021 2:53:29 GMT
A Few Good Men - I cannot accept the idea that a marine colonel lost his cool on the stand and all but indicted himself. Really? Perhaps you can't handle the truth!
The truth is that marine colonels have had to face a lot more than a young lawyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 25, 2021 2:54:46 GMT
Really? Perhaps you can't handle the truth!
The truth is that marine colonels have had to face a lot more than a young lawyer. I just thought it was a shitty, overblown Hollywood movie, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jul 25, 2021 3:02:55 GMT
The truth is that marine colonels have had to face a lot more than a young lawyer. I just thought it was a shitty, overblown Hollywood movie, to be honest. I thought it had too much cute dialog, especially from Cruise. I liked Nicholson's performance, right up to the end. His statement about wanting people like him "on the walls" was powerful and accurate. People like Cruise could not trusted on the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 25, 2021 3:05:35 GMT
I just thought it was a shitty, overblown Hollywood movie, to be honest. I thought it had too much cute dialog, especially from Cruise. I liked Nicholson's performance, right up to the end. His statement about wanting people like him "on the walls" was powerful and accurate. People like Cruise could not trusted on the wall. Rob Reiner's a liberal bubble fantasist who would do well to stay away from hard issues. Nobody mistook 'This Is Spinal Tap' or 'The Princess Bride' for documentaries but I'd suggest neither project sullied the Reiner name beyond all repair.
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Jul 25, 2021 22:00:59 GMT
If you have a strong sense of justice, avoid real life (and movies depicting real life). They will upset you. I feel sorry for you that you do not have a strong sense of justice- maybe people like you are the reason the world is getting worse. BTW- my analysis of Bullitt WAS correct- the mob won!
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Jul 25, 2021 22:14:38 GMT
Another ending that while not troublesome, was hypocritical. I watched The Misfits (1961) yesterday and Gable explains to Monroe that mustangs are caught to make dogfood. Monroe convinces Gable to stop due to cruelty and in the final scenes they drive back to a plane with their dog happily waiting. But that big dog will easily eat 2 horses worth of dogfood a year- why not shoot the dog? And are cows less deserving to live than horses because they aren't as pretty? Gable gets changed from a realist to a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jul 25, 2021 22:58:19 GMT
The ending to one movie has really bothered me and while it's probably unimportant, I'll notify you why.
HEAT (1995). I loved Robert De Niro's ice cool armored car and bank robber Neil McCauley and was rooting for him and Eady (Amy Brenneman) to escape to New Zealand and a new life at the end of the film, but when Jon Voight's sleazy fence (loosely based on Eddie Bunker) tells Neil that Waingro - who definitely deserves to die, is at the hotel, he can't resist going back to kill him, despite a police presence at the hotel. Unfortunately, detective Vince Hanna (Al Pacino) spots Neil as he is making his getaway after successfully terminating the psychotic Waingro, and our rugged anti-hero is forced to flee on foot with the stressed out, world weary cop in hot pursuit. After a vivid, exhausting chase Hanna turns the tables on Neil - who is waiting to ambush him, shoots Neil and holds his hand while he dies. Why does the so called good guy always have to win, and the cool ant-hero always have to die instead of flying off into the sunset? This made me sad, and every time I watch this classic American crime drama a little part of me always hopes Neil McCarthy won't die *. Movies don't always end the way we want them to.
* I just know you are going to tell me that at least Val Kilmer's Chris Shiherlis didn't get caught, thanks to the lovely Charlene (Ashley Judd, back when she was seriously sexy, hadn't been fucked over by Harvey Weinstein for spurning his advances yet, didn't use too much botox and didn't look angry all the time), but it's really not much consolation. Chris was a degenerate gambler and I was invested in Neil, and his fledgling romance with Eady.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 26, 2021 2:22:37 GMT
If you have a strong sense of justice, avoid real life (and movies depicting real life). They will upset you. I feel sorry for you that you do not have a strong sense of justice- maybe people like you are the reason the world is getting worse. BTW- my analysis of Bullitt WAS correct- the mob won! Nothing in Bullitt was ever a matter of win/lose for the mob vs the law. Ross ripped off the mob for $2 million, he and four other people died, Bullitt was responsible for three of those deaths, Chalmers didn't get his star witness testimony and no one was brought to justice. In short: nobody won.* *Although we can be relatively sure that, had the story continued, Chalmers would have found a way to spin the whole fiasco to his advantage and land on his feet.
|
|
