 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - BDR529
1
« on: February 27, 2004, 05:54:43 PM »
OK, sooo... sorry if this is a dumb question  but the DVD will contain ONLY the extended reissue from last year? (It was last year, right? Time flies) If so I'm really gonna smack myself in the face, because I won't be able to avoid buying it the day it's in stores (in fact, since I sleep in pretty late I'll probably sleepwalk to Tower down the street and buy it) but I really couldn't stand the extended version and would almost consider it blasphemy. It's kind of like when a respected author dies while writing his last book, so his family hires a writer to "finish" it for him, publishing it under the late author's name as his "discovered last novel". I thought the GBU project was a noble idea and I can tell they loved the film and worked damn hard, but to me it failed.
2
« on: January 20, 2004, 03:33:50 AM »
I also think that having Indio smoke cannabis was a brilliant move - the only peace his troubled consciousness ever finds. I believe he was the first villain in main stream cinema to smoke weed.
That reminds me. I've always assumed Indio was indeed puffing the magic dragon, the wacky tobaccy, the toodle-oo, etc. (ad nauseum), but is this what Leone intended or is it just an interpretation? As an ex-smoker, I can understand what a calming effect an ordinary cigarrette would have after blowing someone away...
3
« on: December 04, 2003, 07:31:24 PM »
It's pretty groovy... makes it look like a Tarantino film. Seems to me like a cute little joke; anyone who considers it a "serious" trailer for the film will undoubtedly be outraged (but then, the original 60s trailers were even worse).
4
« on: November 17, 2003, 01:30:37 AM »
Also the fact at the end of For a few dollars more he says something about "next time we meet". I mean the only name they call him is Angel Eyes, in GBU. I mean one might use the argument "how about all the other actors that played in all 3 movies" well Lee Van Cleef was a major character, not a minor one.
And they are in El Paso which was more effected by the mexican war then if effected at all by the civil war, so most likely "the war" they refer to is the mexican-american war.
Gian Maria Volonte played a pretty major character (one of The Major Characters) in FOD and FDM, but they're definitely not the same. One reason being that they both are extremely dead at the end, but they also have different personalities (Indio a sly, half-crazed ruthless baby-killing outlaw; Ramon a relatively more decent guy, not all that much worse than "Joe" himself).
5
« on: November 07, 2003, 07:03:10 PM »
Yeah, of course, I knew that! 
6
« on: November 06, 2003, 02:22:01 PM »
When put into the perspective of when it was made, Citizen Kane really blows me away. I wouldn't call it the best film ever made, or even one of the best 10, but it's fascinating to watch, mostly as a technical achievement. Thing is when people see it the first time they've already heard all their life that it's The Greatest Film Ever Made and get sorely disappointed.
Sorry to go further off topic...
7
« on: November 05, 2003, 01:06:43 PM »
Thanks, that's actually a load off my mind. Funny what you can get worked up over.
8
« on: November 04, 2003, 10:53:24 PM »
As I understand it chopping the movie in half was at least partly Tarantino's idea. 90 minutes leaves you panting for more, but at about the 2 hour mark, he reasoned, you'd get bored.
I loved the Leone homages and loved the whole damn movie after about 30 minutes into it. I was a little cautious about it at first (and undertsand, I'm a huge Tarantino fan) as I expected it to be Tarantino's huge ego engaging in some serious cinematic masturbation. And I was right, but after that 30 min. or so mark it really started kicking ass.
Am I wrong, or did I also hear something very similar to "Cockeye's Theme" from OUATIA throughout the film?
9
« on: November 04, 2003, 07:27:23 PM »
On a semi-related topic, can anyone tell me what Tuco shouts in Spanish at Blondie as they ride into town (right after he spits out the cigar)? "Hijo de puta..." something.
10
« on: November 04, 2003, 07:21:39 PM »
"Burning down...[?]...and the sherriff's office in Sonoma."
"[?]...from the Union Army."
Now I'm dying to know what's in the blanks, but I can't make it out.
11
« on: July 26, 2003, 01:21:11 AM »
cedet wrote: "so I suggest to watch only PG movie from Disney"
BDR529: "It always boggles my mind how people will have no problem with a dozen or more murders in a film but will reply to a rape with outrage and cries of "was that really necessary?"
You are both missing the point I made. The point I was making was that cedet was seeing the rape purely in terms of the bad effect it was to have on the man rather than the woman, which I found very strange. I think most human beings, when confronted by a rape scene would be feeling for the victim, the woman, before worrying about the effect it will have on the rapist. cedet obviously sees it differently and is entitled to, and I'm entitled to say I think that's a warped sense of priority.
And BDR529, I never said ""was that really necessary?" in terms of that scene, neither did anyone else on this thread.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. I wasn't directly quoting; I was talking about an attitude I've seen in threads on this board and others, and in conversation (about this specific scene and others in other films). I thought I was seeing the same attitude here, maybe I was wrong. Anyway, maybe cedet was using "sympathetic" in a more "cinematic" sense--that is, we continue to identify with him as our connection to the film; as the protagonist. There are plenty of sympathetic characters in films that are still very unlikable, in my opinion, and vice versa! Or maybe that's not what he meant. But it certainly didn't seem to me like he was excusing the rape.
12
« on: July 21, 2003, 12:27:23 PM »
I think the reason some people object to rape and not to murder is that rape is something the victim has to live with,and it can screw that person up for the rest of their life,I KNOW somebody who was raped and that person will have to live with the memory for the rest of their life.
That's very true, but seems to me like a flimsy reason to say it's more objectionable than murder. You could also say, "at least the rape victim's whole life is not taken away from them, and they are allowed to live on and hopefully heal". Like Clint said, "It's a helluva thing, killing a man; you take away all that he's got and all that he'll ever have."
13
« on: July 21, 2003, 01:52:25 AM »
The way I've always seen it he smiles because the opium takes his mind away from reality and everything that's happened and it's one of the few moments of real happiness (if false drug-induced happiness).l I've always favored the dream theory because it clears up a lot of things for me. Everything in '68 is really hazy and, well, dreamlike; Deborah hasn't aged much; Deborah seems much happier to see Noodles 35 years after he viciously raped her than I would imagine; and most importantly, Noodles concocts in his dream a fairly implausible explanation and ties up all his loose ends. Noodles didn't betray Max, Max betrayed him, and Noodles gets his moment of vindication by facing Max and refusing to kill him. It always seemed unlikely to me that Max (a presumably well-known bootlegger) could magically turn into Secretary Bailey. The whole anachronism thing had also occured to me, and I considered it artistic lisence. It is a dream, after all, and perhaps we're only seeing our own interpretation of his dream... but anyway I'm really getting carried away and I don't think I'm explaining myself half as well as I would like. Sorry...
14
« on: July 21, 2003, 01:39:25 AM »
Because murder is just as bad, no one complaining about our views on that 'minor crime'.
That's the way I've always thought of it. It always boggles my mind how people will have no problem with a dozen or more murders in a film but will reply to a rape with outrage and cries of "was that really necessary?". Rape is repugnant and evil, and so is murder, but we're used to seeing the latter in films and not so much the former. Did we lose sympathy with Noodles when he stabbed Bugsy to death? How about the mob hits he pulled with Max and the gang? How about if instead of stabbing Bugsy for revenge, he tied him down and ass-raped him?
15
« on: July 10, 2003, 03:23:03 PM »
I wasn't saying the scenes themselves weren't of value; on the contrary I think it's a downright trajedy that they were cut from the English version. I'm just saying that the restoration didn't work, and I'm not sure that it could have worked at all, nearly forty years later.
|
Show Posts