So was it a spoiler?
Forest gump. I really like tom hanks. But I hate that movie
1 Like
Donāt worry. You probably just didnāt understand itā¦like the Age reviewer. Admittedly, it doesnāt reflect Trumpās America, but the America of more idealistic times.
Great movie. Great music.
2 Likes
I think Deckham read your comment āWolverine killingā as āWolverine gets killedā hence the misunderstanding. I havenāt seen the movie so have no idea whether Wolverine dies or not but I think Deckham was trying to convey his misunderstanding of what you wrote in a way which didnāt confirm whether Wolverine died one way or another.
3 Likes
l agree with this reading of the situation, which is probably what caused the confusion and angst in the first place.
I usually stay away from watching remakes of great movies, as they are mostly pale imitations and I already know the plot.
So last night I got to see Murder on the Orient Express and was not a willing participant, but the booze was free and Mrs Fox insisted.
I will not say much about the movie and offer no spoilers, but it is different enough to the original to make it worth seeing, and there are some superb acting performances.
1 Like
Have to agree with you on that one. I havenāt watched it for a long time though so I may revisit it.
I hope it had the same basic premise as the ending otherwise itās not MOTOE.
That all the passengers participated in the murder
Aggie liked those trick solutions. Like Ten Little Nā¦, I mean And Then There Were None.
I gave up on Aggie when I realised that the least likely person was probably the culprit.
I meanā¦even the narrator did it in one. Thatās nonsense!
If I had meant that, then I would have said that, but as I didnāt, then I didnāt mean that. Everyone else got it, apart from him. Him misunderstanding is his fault and he should have left it at that before he embarrassed himself further and chucked a hissy fit. As I told him straight away there were no spoilers in my original post. None, zilch, zero. Everyone else easily comprehended that, everyone else commented how there were no spoilers, but instead not only did he keep prodding. If Deckham had just taken the simple word that there were no spoilers then there would have been no issue whatsover.
Itās not on me to comprehend how Deckham understands posts or reads them, and frankly Iād rather him not respond to me in general, cause he targets me in threads because he couldnāt handle other opinions and acts like a massive sook. If he canāt comprehend, misunderstands or blows another gasket for no reason, thatās on him, and perhaps a good lesson for him to act like a civil person next time or quit whilst heās behind.
Anyway, Iāve already wasted enough time trying to explain basic things to him. Iām moving on.
What didnt you like about it?
For the record, Iāve never seen a single X-Men film.
I have no interest in seeing any of them, including Logan.
And I knew it wasā¦
Classification MA 15+
Consumer Advice Strong ā ā ā ā ā ā violence
Thatās not a spoiler, thatās on the label.
I also knew It was set in a post X-Men world due to Professor whoever having a massive hissy fit and (accidentally?) killing all the mutants except the unkillable Logan. And that it kind of called all the other movies āentertainmentā. That it was a little self-aware.
And I donāt care about X-Men movies.
For someone to actually care about those movies, and nine months after the release of the movie carry on about Not a spoilerā¦
And go on about it that much.
Is it really about the movie?
Really?
I donāt think it is.
1 Like
Exactly, well said.
I think the reality is more Deckham finding any excuse to have a crackā¦
Accusation from the guy in the new Star Trek that Kevin Spacey got ā¦ improper with him when he was 14 (and Spacey in his late 20s)
Ick.
I just thought it was weak compared to other Scorsese films.
I have seen the original and in my opinion it was far superior.
The script was weak in the Scorsese version. I personally wouldnāt have had the Vera Farmiga character in there at all. I think it slowed the movie down without actually adding any insight into the characters. And on top of that some parts didnāt make sense to me.
I thought the editing was off point also. Thelma Schoonmaker is one of the more innovative editors getting around but this film just didnāt have the same flow that Scorsese films usually have. Comparing this film to Raging Bull, Goodfellas or the more recent Wolf of Wall Street and in my opinion you cant compare them.
And some of the dialogue was just plain cringe worthy. The Wahlberg and Damon characters in particular were ridiculous.
I have seen it a few times now thinking I may have missed something but I still just donāt get how it justifies a 8.5 rating on IMDB.
1 Like
Iām sure thereās plenty of male-on-male Weinstein-type behaviour too.
Youād wonder if it ever happens with female-on-male or female-on-female behaviour tooā¦or at least, its frequency.
I like those Dennis Lehane type Boston crime dramas, but this one was a bit of a letdown.
1 Like
Hollywood dirty laundry airing. Gonna get messy.
I donāt think it was Jackās best performance.
Thereās one scene with Sheen under the bridgeā¦that really works, but the restā¦
I thought Wahlberg was as good as Iāve ever seen him.
Edit: On reflection, I think Damon was probably miscast.