That "one" flaw

RosieAsBettyrubble.jpg
 
I had to resurrect this.

I just re-watched Silence of the Lambs and how, how how how are we supposed to believe that Hannibal stole his warden's pen to escape when Hannibal is completely immobilized?? It would have made more sense if he had picked something up in his impromptu cell which he escaped from.
 
The Marvel films consistently underutilise their villains, only exception so far seems to be TIH in which case the hero suffered. Although it looks like AoU is changing this.
 
The son surviving in War of the Worlds.

That's almost a commentary on Spielberg's flaw...he just can't help himself with that mushy-gushy tie it in a bow so everyone's happy moment. The ET ending worked, but sometimes it just falls on its face.
 
JAK®;29414323 said:
The Marvel films consistently underutilise their villains, only exception so far seems to be TIH in which case the hero suffered. Although it looks like AoU is changing this.

With three movies under his belt, I don't think Loki was underutilized at all. I also thought Red Skull was put to good use. But AOU does look to seriously up the ante in that department.


Anyway, back to the topic. I was watching The Godfather yesterday, and the one flaw in that one for me always has to be the astoundingly fake looking beat-down that Sonny gives his brother-in-law for hitting his sister. I mean, as nit-picky as it sounds, couldn't James Caan have pulled his punches a little better to make it look more realistic?
 
In X-Men: Days of Future Past, Wolverine wakes up in the future and sees that all of his friends are alive and happy. This means that not only do they survive any remainder of the film that remains...they will also survive X-Men: Apocalypse and any future sequels until the timeline eventually catches up. There is ZERO drama about Beast, Rogue, Iceman, Cyclops, Jean etc in the upcoming films. They will survive whatever threats they face, and they will win a decisive enough victory that will allow them peace and happiness in the future. It has turned the entire X-Men series into prequels, forced into being in line with that future scene. I loved the film when I saw it, but as time passes this detail eats away at me more and more.
 
^^
How far in the future was the "happy future", I don't remember but the sequels you mentioned can happen after that point, can't they ?
 
I had to resurrect this.

I just re-watched Silence of the Lambs and how, how how how are we supposed to believe that Hannibal stole his warden's pen to escape when Hannibal is completely immobilized?? It would have made more sense if he had picked something up in his impromptu cell which he escaped from.

I assume his jailers forgot the pen in his cell. After they left, he quietly pocketed it.
 
^^
How far in the future was the "happy future", I don't remember but the sequels you mentioned can happen after that point, can't they ?

2023, 50 years after Days of Future Past. Apocalypse apparently takes place in the 1980's (I guess they are jumping ten years between each movie, which will be really strange if they keep that up much longer).
 
That's almost a commentary on Spielberg's flaw...he just can't help himself with that mushy-gushy tie it in a bow so everyone's happy moment. The ET ending worked, but sometimes it just falls on its face.

I don't like Minority Report's ending much either.
 
What I find bizarre is how often people try to characterize the ending of AI in a similar way... Yeah that is not at all a happy ending.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"