MovieChat Forums > jgm4661 > Replies
jgm4661's Replies
It was chosen by both the National Board of Review and American Film Institute as one of the top ten films of the year but to each his own.
She doesn't. They even live in the same room for crying out loud but believe what you like.
She doesn't ignore her kid(not plural) . They are pawning,shopping, having meals and doing lots of things together.
She alludes to the fact she has applied to every spot on the strip and mentions Disney won't hire her (perhaps because she has a record as she mentions she can't get arrested again). So she works as a street vendor selling personal products
The pt is despite all her despair, the kids develop good friendships and have a great time for most of the movie. They go for ice cream, swim in the pool , watch fireworks , play games and otherwise lead very normal childhoods in fact. The dialogue is in fact very clever and humorous too for 6 year olds.
Good review. The business dialogue is very clever and accurate. The 80's were a time of mega mergers so Law is very accurate in fact w his merger proposition. IT was very real for firms to either get large or become a niche player as the middle is really a dead zone. This and the other popular business transaction of the time, the leveraged buy out -LBO, were the theme of the 80's. Recall 'Barbarians at the Gate'.
So Law is really a product of the times as much as his ambition.
I enjoyed the film for the business aspect alone. Great characters too and he and his wife have a nice "War of the Roses' going on w some very funny dialogue.
1) Not to report the $ to the cops as it is mob money
2) Driver was told it was $40,000 and it was $1M. Not reported means it is illegal $. Blanche knew of this.
3) She called someone. Driver knows she is part of scheme and figures she called someone to give their location as she did so when he was out of the room
4) Blanche knew it was 1m. Gabriel didn't
5) Maybe thinking she was Driver.
I agree. It was almost unbelievable noone wanted to mention anything when Jerry joins them in their room. They were so unscrupulous they couldn't even be forthright. Misleading and not decent enough to give their original agent a chance at a counter offer. Maybe he was so racist he signed w Sugar out of spite.
You wouldn't want people like that as clients either way.
I think he was mainly selfish and dishonest but the line is a little racist. Cushman seems kind of old fashioned preferring a handshake vs a contract and either backwardly racist too or he just isn't up to date w acceptance of black athletes in sport.
What is peculiar is they welcome Jerry into the hotel room knowing fully they are going w another agent. You would think they could have at least been honest upfront, unless they were just hoping to get away w it and not have to deal w Jerry later.
Either from disloyalty or being duped by Sugar that Denver doesn't deal w Jerry, they don't seem interested in at least discussing it w him either. Cushman was likely mainly duped but also appeared turned off by Jerry spending time w Rod vs w them.
Would say he was mainly duped, a little overwhelmed and generally naive. Cushman was 'learning as he went' as he described.
So flippant and disloyal really you almost wouldn't want him as a client anyway.
'Hard to make a stand' is awesome
Yes. But it is an interesting twist on the more common high school themes. Supposedly autobiographical too.
It was kind of an odd film. I thought it was supposed to be an Agatha Christie type who dunnit but it really was just between the nanny and Ransom. A pretty decent story but you have to wonder why there were all the extra characters?
I just think Meredith's lawyers took that non incident and tried to use it as evidence against Tom. She really didn't feel it was an issue but it still happened and as a witness they called she would have to describe the events.
Her going back to work for him proves they were non events
Good pt on the introduction scene. Maybe they just wanted to get him comfortable w the fact he was getting passed over
I think she is referring to when they are in the meeting and she is trying ( unsuccessfully) to pin the production problems on Tom and Garvin asked her to step outside ( she thinks he lost his nerve).
I just think she id deluded thinking she won when she clearly lost and Garvin didn't have the guts to back her.
Or she is just being dishonest. Then again Phil was the one pushing the incompetence strategy. Doubt Phil was doing that on hos own so I still think Garvin was behind it in someway.
Tom was curing Garvin earlier after being passed over so he seems to know how much of a corporate snake he is too.
I think the subject actually got quite covered during that time and into the 70s. Recall they made movies out of the concerts at Monterrey, Altamont and Woodstock so there was lots of coverage of the lifestyle and music from those alone. You can add musicals like " Hair' ,"Jesus Christ Superstar" and ' Godpsell' to that list too which were huge at the time.
' Easy Rider' was probably the largest chronicle of the hippie era IMO and became kind of their counter culture hit and anthem. The idea you could do what you want and live off the land albeit for the stars through criminal enterprise. That also produced a spate of motorcycle gang and other counter culture type movies. " The Trip', "Head' ."Psych Out', Hells angels on Wheels' , 'CC Rider ' etc. " or drug related themes like " Go ask Alice' . 'More American Graffiti" covered a lot of the culture as to some extend did " The Graduate' - the college scenes.
Then there was "Helter Skelter' which was shocking and massive in the mid 70s and there were a host other films and documentaries that covered the Manson Family.
Many Vietnam movies related more to the effects of the war on society featured hippie type characters like "Coming Home', "Born on the 4th of July"
Much of the long hair was a protest to the war so when it ended so did a lot of the anti war hippie type movements and following in culture.
It isn't like the hippies really accomplished much else aside from their protests during that period that was story worthy. They all eventually came to realize they couldn't live in some alternate idealist fantasy society and had to get jobs to support themselves or even their families and accept the realities of life.
Add to that all the Vietnam movies and really overall the 60s coverage in film became almost tiresome by the end of the 80s.
I just saw Ford v Ferrari. That was a far better film, story ,acting, cinematography etc IMO.
Parasite is a good movie but it was really kind of Coenesque and they have made better noir films. It isn't like we havent' seen the class struggle for the 1st time either. Even recently Crazy Rich Asians touched on the theme.
I think they were overreaching too in their desire to achieve their diversity goals.
And it again is stupid and misplaced past or present regardless of their particular stripe or beef. If you can't see that that is your problem. Not my fault some are grandstanding fools abusing their platform and the viewers shouldn't adjust their viewing to cater to them either FFS
Sorry we were talking about the inappropriateness of political opinion at the Academy awards which is supposed to be a night about the films and movie industry. Given your obvious biases , you would be going apoplectic if Clint Eastwood wore a MAGA hat lol.
Happy to lift the mist. Maybe give the caps key a rest too.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to know he doesn't sit in w Donald Trump and get briefed on Ukraine policy and corruption lol. IMO he is just another actor misusing his influence. You can believe he is a foreign policy expert if you like though.
Trump is in politics. Pitt is an actor and at an awards show for movies so you would hope he would have enough to talk about in that area alone.
What does he know about corruption in the Ukraine too? Right. Nothing.