 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: "this is not a film about a hitman." Huh? What film did you watch? posted by tinear on April 17, 2007 at 17:00:10:
Once again, you fail to see the forest through the trees. Please take my posts in context. I stated that this was not a film about a hitman per se, because it could have been about an attorney, a doctor, or even someone who spends their lives sitting on a beach as their brain become mush, and the arc of the story would have been the same. An attorney who spends their lives in the high powered courtroom, uses their mental faculties and persuasion to help the downtrodden, or the brain surgeon, whose brain is now reduced to putty. Understand?The Bourne films are specifically about a hitman with memory issues. But make our "hero" an attorney, doctor, or bum on the beach, and you have no film, because you cannot substitute those occupations for his and have the same film covering much of the same issues. Capiche?
"A piteous wreck who cold-bloodedly shoots a policeman in the face, killing him, and then backs up over his backup.
A very deep film. Deeeeeep."You seem to apply the Doc Holiday mantra of "my hyprocrisy knows no bounds." You compliment Bourne, when he is as cold blooded a killer. With, apparently, no moral compass. See the second Bourne film with Malkcovich, who embroils a regular guy in a hit merely because the regular guy tossed Bourne a barb at a party? You loved Pulp Fiction, you called it a classic, even though our heroes blow away some pimple faced kids who are unarmed, or Our Lady of the Assassins, in its depictions of senseless gang killings, etc.
Now, for the ultimate coup de grace from the tin, from 2004: "So, any director respected by the evil media/criticsare overrated? You aren't asking us to take your ranking as being necessarily higher than SCORES of critics and film appreciators, are you?" You called the film "rubbish." According to RT, 84% of critics recommend the film, 86% of the "cream" critics. Were they all fooled too? How 'bout Andrew Sarris, who has been reviewing film since, well, since film was invented.
Follow Ups:
Remove the Alzheimers from this film. It's not important at all. It's just a revenge film.
A poor, copy-cat one at that.
The hits, which occupy most of the film, are typical of Grarde B films, of which this is merely another example.
Oh, it's Belgian. Whoopee. They can do carbon copies well, too.
"Remove the Alzheimers from this film. It's not important at all. It's just a revenge film."Incorrect. Again. Logic and cognitive thought are not your strong suits, so I'll assist. Sometimes watching a film requires more thought that simply processing an image or story on the screen. For example, your statement that these cops somehow are not real cops. I reply that I have professionally known and come into contact with many investigative officers, and your statement is patently false. Your reply. Zip. Nada.
I write to inform you that your support of such carnage flicks as Pulp Fiction with their amoral characters killing defenseless people would seem to run counter to some of your complaints to this film, to which, again, you do not reply. I provided an example in Bourne, a film you seem to admire, in which our hero is amoral, would seem to suffer the same critism you place on this film, yet nary a reply. Sounds hyprocrital. I can only assume that you feel that senseless, amoral murder is okay if done with style, wit, and panache. Perhaps you should add an addendum that senseless and mindless killing is okay if done with a certain flair. Would you agree?
Now, here goes some back story, which, I think, the diretor and screenwriter assume an intelligent viewer can supply. This is an elder hitman. Hitmen arrive at his age because, (1) they are very good at their jobs (good shots, secretive, intelligent, good planner, yada yada yada) (2) loyal and trustworthy, and (3) do what they are told, and are emotionally detached. They do not become good hitmen because they take on a personal cause, such as revenge, which is, by its very nature, personal.
So, why has this very successful hitman, who has tried to retire because of his ailment, now killing, with the exception of the police officer, bad guys? Because, dear tinhead, he has nothing to loose. His handlers are now trying to kill him because they have a man in the field who is leaving a trail of bodies, and is being pursued by the police. Kind of tough to be a good hitman when the police have identified you, are on your trail, and, to cap it all off, the hitman is actually contacting the police telling them he is doing their jobs.
Why does he have nothing to loose? Because he knows that his alzheimers will slowly rot his brain, and everything important to him will be gone. Contrary to your insipid comment, I am not praising his actions. The police officers are in the film to be the moral compass of the film, and the lead officer plainly tells the "hero" that he does not, in any way, support the killings, and that his intent is to bring him to justice. Hardly a "hero."
If he had no alzheimers, there is no film, because, for this hitman, he would trudge on as business as usual, maybe even making an appearance in another Tarantino film, which would then require you to towel off from the drool dripping from your mouth in praise. So, you see, your statement that the alzheimers means nothing in the film is simply incorrect. It is, in fact, the entire impetus for the entire film.
Oh, yeah, and your statement relative to Memento is also incorrect. Memento was hardly original relative to the loss of memory and note taking. Dana Carvey starred in a film called Clean Slate from 1994 that involved a character who had the same ailment, and utilized the same remedy. Memento was released in 2000. Although Clean Slate had its funny momements, I'd hardly call it, or the concept, brilliant. No doubt there was another such film before Clean Slate.
Now, do you want to engage in an intelligent dialog with correct facts rather than unsupported conclusions, and avoid the name calling?
They were actors. Bad ones, at that. The cute lady detective looked real authentic, too, I bet you think?
The jerk was avenging the death of the 12 yr-old. Period.
The writer threw in the Alzheimer's angle as an afterthought to make guys like you think they were watching art.
It's crap, with a topping of frosting.
Bon appetit!
"You think they were "real cops?"Where did I write that they were real cops? You wrote: "the two cops pursuing him are flat: they look more like grad students than tough cops." I merely responded that I have had contact with many investigative police officers, and their "look" was consistent with many of the investigative officers I have had contact with. Therefore, your statement they look like grad students rather than cops was factually incorrect, as they most certainly look like many investigative officers.
"The jerk was avenging the death of the 12 yr-old. Period."
No doubt. The question is not what he was doing, but why. Would he have done so had he not had alzheimers? I say no. My basis? Because he not only went after the killer, which he could have done indiscreetly, returned home, and await instructions for his next job, but he also went up the food chain like a bull in a china shop, obviously not caring about being discovered by police. Why would a discreet, professional hitman not care about being discovered by police? Because he knows this is last job, and he does not care about being caught. Why does he not care about being caught? Because he has alzheimers.
"The writer threw in the Alzheimer's angle as an afterthought to make guys like you think they were watching art."
Huh? Guys like me, you mean Andrew Sarris? Alzheimers equates to art? You mean to suggest that you discovered this manipulation, whereas more than 80% of the professional critics, whom you have previously held out as being informed, missed it? Perhaps this is what rico was referring to above. Your unwillingness to countenance that you may be wrong in the face of significant quantity and quality of opposing opinions. I have gone to great lengths to explain why the alzheimers "angle" was important. Perhaps you would begin by responding to those comments, and actually explain why it was not important, why this hitman would have continued on the same path regardless of his disease, rather than merely state conclusions.
I'll provide another example. Early in the film, he tells his handler he was wants to retire. Why? If you recall the scene at the restaurant when he told his handler this, he re-ordered french fries from the waitress. He forgot his previous order because of his alzheimers.
Is he avenging a 12 year old's death? Sure. But let's weigh the pros and cons of his "revenge" both with and without alzheimers. Having alzheimers, his "revenge" now leads to his retirement. He gets out of the business, which he wants to do anyway. If he is killed, so what, he prefers that to the condition his brother is in (which is the point of the scene with his brother.) If he gets incarcerated, so what, does it matter that his brain is rotting in a mental hospital or a jail cell? With Alheimers, he gives up nothing, making his decision to exact "revenge" easy.
Now, let's assume that he does not have alzheimers. Without alzheimers, what would tip the scales such that he would decide to avenge her death, given that he would likely be giving up his career, and guaranteeing incarceration for the rest of his life, and risk being hit by his bosses to avoid him being force to spill the beans for other hits? Would he continue to communicate with the investigators?
You say that the alzheimers is merely an "angle." I think I have come to the table and explained why it is not. Perhaps you could do the same, and provide some analysis as to why it is an "angle."These are the reasons why this film is different than your typical police procedural, or hitman type film. There are more issue lurking under the surface than simply killing people for no reason other than they are paid to do so. Merely because you cannot see the sun does not mean that you are right when it is raining. And I am still waiting for an explanation as to why senseless killing in Pulp Fiction and Bourne are acceptable, whereas in this film they are not.
You have, thus far, provided dessert. I've prepared and served the entre' for you. Enjoy your meal. Perhaps you will serve more than the fast food you like to ridicule.
soap opera cop-wannabe actors, a babe 'cause crummy films always need eye-candy, and a grizzly old fart who stole his idea about writing on his arm from the wonderful film, "Memento" to which this thing can't aspire to on it's best day.
If you wish to engage in serious conversations, you may wish to refrain from writing lies. I never said I revered Bourne films or the character, merely that the films had much more style.
Far superior action scenes, as well.
I'm so happy you've had so much close, "professional" proximity with police officers.
I think that was your arguments' strongest bulwark.
"If you wish to engage in serious conversations, you may wish to refrain from writing lies. I never said I revered Bourne films or the character, merely that the films had much more style."Where did I write that you "revered" the Bourne films? I wrote that you admired it. I wrote that you complimented it. All true.
"Far superior action scenes, as well."
So what? Memory of a Killer is not an action movie. "It Happened One Night" was funnier. Big deal.
We have not had a serious conversation, unfortunately. For every time I provide you conclusions and analysis, with specific examples, all you provide are conclusions, obviously incapable. I answer your points with facts, and all you do is respond with more drivel. Case in point about the police officers. Rather than responding that you wrote without any support, and perhaps you were wrong, you merely congratulate me on my "proximity" with police officers.
This "conversation" is over as you are a waste of my time. Good day.
Go back, look at how you've portrayed my comments on "Bourne."
Now, you're parsing "revere" and "admire."
I didn't say I admired the title character or the film: you said both.
You build up this immense sand castle, everytime, making it too tempting for my "tide" of reason.
The Bourne films have style, noticeably lacking in Old Forgetful Man with a Gun. Period.
You may wish to learn from Oscar Wilde, "Like all people who try to exhaust his subject, he only succeeded in exhausting the listeners."
To help your understanding, I'll paraphrase: brevity is the soul of wit.
certainly is a ridiculous way to discuss something.
You could be logical. That would be novel.
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
