Reply to Topic
Thank you GBG for hosting June Movie of the Month
We have a new host coming up for July! so stay tuned!
We have a new host coming up for July! so stay tuned!
Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
Let me start off by saying that while I did not get attached to the movie, it VASTLY improves as the movie goes on. Also let me thank GBG for choosing this sort of film, because I think we won’t get a lot of films like this to analyze. I usually kind of turn my brain off during these sorts of films, but I enjoyed analyzing the movie. That said, I enjoyed it mostly because I truly enjoy finding things I react strongly to, either positively or negatively (most of which will be negative for this film).
Also this is gonna be sorta disconnected, it’s coming from stream of conscious style notes. I tend to rely on other people keeping me on topic, so I apologize from the get go.
I’ll be a bit candid/harsh for a bit here, and say that I hated the first third of this movie. From the opening shot, where there was an honestly interesting shot of a plane dipping down into the lake to collect water, but then transitioned into a cheap gag. Right from that point, I was rooting against the pilot. It crossed that line between charming rogue and reckless endangerment.
Also I have in my notes, whatever happened to chewing gum? Dorinda is chewing very conspicuously. Maybe I’m imagining it, but I just remember chewing gum being EVERYWHERE in movies during my childhood (early 90’s). Was chewing gum actually that popular, or was chewing gum in this instance a PG analogy to chewing tobacco?
Netflix has a very spoiler filled tagline, so I knew going into the film that a pilot was going to die and act as a guardian angel. So strangely I went into the first sequence assuming he’d die (as opposed to the normal assumption of plot armor). Because of this, I was quite upset that it seemed like the headwinds turning against him suddenly was portrayed as the cause of his death, as in, sure he took risks, but that wind is just unfair! But then the wind turned back as Ted flew in (at this point, I made the mistaken assumption that Ted was the guardian angel pilot, which was quickly dispelled), still I didn’t really care for the device of the wind, but it was better than it being the cause of death.
When he lands, we’re treated to a walk and talk. And this is my least favorite section of the film (though I did learn that walk and talks really need good dialogue or they are just really annoying). I lost all empathy with the characters. They stand on the runways to jump out of the way (why?), she flies dangerously to prove a point, and after this intense back and forth, they’re just so glib about it all. It’s at this point that I have a thought that sticks with me for most of the film: It feels like I’ve been dropped into the middle of a sitcom where I know none of the characters, and everything is sped up ad nauseam.
The interactions where the characters should be upset with each other are brushed aside for wacky dialogue. You can certainly tell that there’s frustration, but there’s a stream of insincere humor that buries it all.
(By the way, this is a problem that I have with a LOT of films. It’s difficult to show intimacy between characters, so a lot of writers take a cheap shortcut where they show the characters interacting through almost pure humor. I wouldn’t have an issue with it if inside jokes and sarcastic back and forths weren’t consistently used to the near absolute exclusion of any other sort of portrayal of personal closeness)
The scene with the dress and the dancing reinforced the sitcom tone. I felt like I should know something about all these characters, and have some sort of inside reference to why this moment was important, but all of this happens in the first 20 minutes. It was disorienting, and aggravating. And honestly it felt...off… seeing this group of co-workers go “hubba hubba” over their own. But different times I suppose. (The one that acted differently from the rest was Al, who gave Dorinda a big bear hug when he had the chance, setting up a specifically non-sexualized relationship, and instantly giving me the notion that he was going to survive and be close with Dorinda and not be seen as a romantic threat)
Love is like a forest fire….uuuuuuuuugghghghghghghghhgh
(My main problem here is that I hate it when characters in a movie seem to contextualize EVERYTHING via their known traits. It could have worked, but in this case it felt really clumsy)
Ultimately, the pacing up to Pete’s death prevented me from processing any emotion. That and the death and resurrection were all too quick.
Luckily, after that, the film actually slowed down a lot.
Hap guides Pete through the guardian angel situation, but it all feels pretty inconsequential. Time speeds up, well that’s just what happens! They also spend all this time setting up this guardian angel idea, but it never really goes anywhere. We see two total spirits except Pete (unless I’m missing something), one is Hap and the other is the bus driver who is brought back to life. Except for Hap’s direct influence on Pete, we have all this set-up without showing any other effects of these guardian angels except Pete’s story. It makes sense to concentrate, but it felt like a wasted concept when it wasn’t explored any more than that.
Goodman’s scene where he yells at Dorinda for giving up is probably the best in the film. It was so well acted and serious that it actually felt out of place in this film.
The scene with the homeless man selectively relaying Pete’s messages to Ted, causing Ted to do exactly what Pete did not want him to, was kinda cliche, but executed well enough that it was entertaining. It was cute and it wasn’t sped up to the point of nonsense.
The last section of the movie actually had good enough effects and intense enough shots that I stopped taking notes for a while. That was actually decent. There was some emotional depth to Pete helping Dorinda fly (though it really seemed like the amount of fire between the fire fighters and the river seemed trivial enough that they could find some way through without being injured, I didn’t buy that at all).
After saving the firefighters, the rest of the movie makes sure to (almost) always keep Pete in pale blue light, giving him a ghostly visage. I liked this touch, and I’m glad they fit it in organically rather than just “making him” blue because he’s a spirit. It also set-up up Dorinda stepping out of the moonlight as an effective visual.
It wasn’t until after viewing that I let myself look up details about the film, such as it being a remake of A Guy Named Joe, which explains a lot. From what I read, it was very similar in tone, except trading the war for forest fires.
I didn’t watch Joe, but I’m much more forgiving of that film, but because I view it as propaganda; it served a real public messaging purpose needed at the time. A lot of guys were dying in the war, and this type of film was aimed towards the widows, trying to help them move on from losing loved ones. I’m more forgiving because it really had to get that one point across, and it had to do so on a more limited time. Spielberg had been thinking about remaking Joe since Jaws (apparently), and I don’t feel he justified it with Always.
Overall, I didn’t care for Always, but I liked it MUCH more as the film went on. That said, I think it was a really interesting and good choice by GBG!
This would have all sounded smarter if I got to sneak it in between Yoda and bluedeed’s more knowledgeable criticisms, but here it is, all the same!
Also this is gonna be sorta disconnected, it’s coming from stream of conscious style notes. I tend to rely on other people keeping me on topic, so I apologize from the get go.
I’ll be a bit candid/harsh for a bit here, and say that I hated the first third of this movie. From the opening shot, where there was an honestly interesting shot of a plane dipping down into the lake to collect water, but then transitioned into a cheap gag. Right from that point, I was rooting against the pilot. It crossed that line between charming rogue and reckless endangerment.
Also I have in my notes, whatever happened to chewing gum? Dorinda is chewing very conspicuously. Maybe I’m imagining it, but I just remember chewing gum being EVERYWHERE in movies during my childhood (early 90’s). Was chewing gum actually that popular, or was chewing gum in this instance a PG analogy to chewing tobacco?
Netflix has a very spoiler filled tagline, so I knew going into the film that a pilot was going to die and act as a guardian angel. So strangely I went into the first sequence assuming he’d die (as opposed to the normal assumption of plot armor). Because of this, I was quite upset that it seemed like the headwinds turning against him suddenly was portrayed as the cause of his death, as in, sure he took risks, but that wind is just unfair! But then the wind turned back as Ted flew in (at this point, I made the mistaken assumption that Ted was the guardian angel pilot, which was quickly dispelled), still I didn’t really care for the device of the wind, but it was better than it being the cause of death.
When he lands, we’re treated to a walk and talk. And this is my least favorite section of the film (though I did learn that walk and talks really need good dialogue or they are just really annoying). I lost all empathy with the characters. They stand on the runways to jump out of the way (why?), she flies dangerously to prove a point, and after this intense back and forth, they’re just so glib about it all. It’s at this point that I have a thought that sticks with me for most of the film: It feels like I’ve been dropped into the middle of a sitcom where I know none of the characters, and everything is sped up ad nauseam.
The interactions where the characters should be upset with each other are brushed aside for wacky dialogue. You can certainly tell that there’s frustration, but there’s a stream of insincere humor that buries it all.
(By the way, this is a problem that I have with a LOT of films. It’s difficult to show intimacy between characters, so a lot of writers take a cheap shortcut where they show the characters interacting through almost pure humor. I wouldn’t have an issue with it if inside jokes and sarcastic back and forths weren’t consistently used to the near absolute exclusion of any other sort of portrayal of personal closeness)
The scene with the dress and the dancing reinforced the sitcom tone. I felt like I should know something about all these characters, and have some sort of inside reference to why this moment was important, but all of this happens in the first 20 minutes. It was disorienting, and aggravating. And honestly it felt...off… seeing this group of co-workers go “hubba hubba” over their own. But different times I suppose. (The one that acted differently from the rest was Al, who gave Dorinda a big bear hug when he had the chance, setting up a specifically non-sexualized relationship, and instantly giving me the notion that he was going to survive and be close with Dorinda and not be seen as a romantic threat)
Love is like a forest fire….uuuuuuuuugghghghghghghghhgh
(My main problem here is that I hate it when characters in a movie seem to contextualize EVERYTHING via their known traits. It could have worked, but in this case it felt really clumsy)
Ultimately, the pacing up to Pete’s death prevented me from processing any emotion. That and the death and resurrection were all too quick.
Luckily, after that, the film actually slowed down a lot.
Hap guides Pete through the guardian angel situation, but it all feels pretty inconsequential. Time speeds up, well that’s just what happens! They also spend all this time setting up this guardian angel idea, but it never really goes anywhere. We see two total spirits except Pete (unless I’m missing something), one is Hap and the other is the bus driver who is brought back to life. Except for Hap’s direct influence on Pete, we have all this set-up without showing any other effects of these guardian angels except Pete’s story. It makes sense to concentrate, but it felt like a wasted concept when it wasn’t explored any more than that.
Goodman’s scene where he yells at Dorinda for giving up is probably the best in the film. It was so well acted and serious that it actually felt out of place in this film.
The scene with the homeless man selectively relaying Pete’s messages to Ted, causing Ted to do exactly what Pete did not want him to, was kinda cliche, but executed well enough that it was entertaining. It was cute and it wasn’t sped up to the point of nonsense.
The last section of the movie actually had good enough effects and intense enough shots that I stopped taking notes for a while. That was actually decent. There was some emotional depth to Pete helping Dorinda fly (though it really seemed like the amount of fire between the fire fighters and the river seemed trivial enough that they could find some way through without being injured, I didn’t buy that at all).
After saving the firefighters, the rest of the movie makes sure to (almost) always keep Pete in pale blue light, giving him a ghostly visage. I liked this touch, and I’m glad they fit it in organically rather than just “making him” blue because he’s a spirit. It also set-up up Dorinda stepping out of the moonlight as an effective visual.
It wasn’t until after viewing that I let myself look up details about the film, such as it being a remake of A Guy Named Joe, which explains a lot. From what I read, it was very similar in tone, except trading the war for forest fires.
I didn’t watch Joe, but I’m much more forgiving of that film, but because I view it as propaganda; it served a real public messaging purpose needed at the time. A lot of guys were dying in the war, and this type of film was aimed towards the widows, trying to help them move on from losing loved ones. I’m more forgiving because it really had to get that one point across, and it had to do so on a more limited time. Spielberg had been thinking about remaking Joe since Jaws (apparently), and I don’t feel he justified it with Always.
Overall, I didn’t care for Always, but I liked it MUCH more as the film went on. That said, I think it was a really interesting and good choice by GBG!
This would have all sounded smarter if I got to sneak it in between Yoda and bluedeed’s more knowledgeable criticisms, but here it is, all the same!
Last edited by Slappydavis; 07-02-16 at 12:35 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Let me start off by saying that while I did not get attached to the movie, it VASTLY improves as the movie goes on. Also let me thank GBG for choosing this sort of film, because I think we won’t get a lot of films like this to analyze. I usually kind of turn my brain off during these sorts of films, but I enjoyed analyzing the movie. That said, I enjoyed it mostly because I truly enjoy finding things I react strongly to, either positively or negatively (most of which will be negative for this film).
Also this is gonna be sorta disconnected, it’s coming from stream of conscious style notes. I tend to rely on other people keeping me on topic, so I apologize from the get go.
I’ll be a bit candid/harsh for a bit here, and say that I hated the first third of this movie. From the opening shot, where there was an honestly interesting shot of a plane dipping down into the lake to collect water, but then transitioned into a cheap gag. Right from that point, I was rooting against the pilot. It crossed that line between charming rogue and reckless endangerment.
Also I have in my notes, whatever happened to chewing gum? Dorinda is chewing very conspicuously. Maybe I’m imagining it, but I just remember chewing gum being EVERYWHERE in movies during my childhood (early 90’s). Was chewing gum actually that popular, or was chewing gum in this instance a PG analogy to chewing tobacco?
Netflix has a very spoiler filled tagline, so I knew going into the film that a pilot was going to die and act as a guardian angel. So strangely I went into the first sequence assuming he’d die (as opposed to the normal assumption of plot armor). Because of this, I was quite upset that it seemed like the headwinds turning against him suddenly was portrayed as the cause of his death, as in, sure he took risks, but that wind is just unfair! But then the wind turned back as Ted flew in (at this point, I made the mistaken assumption that Ted was the guardian angel pilot, which was quickly dispelled), still I didn’t really care for the device of the wind, but it was better than it being the cause of death.
When he lands, we’re treated to a walk and talk. And this is my least favorite section of the film (though I did learn that walk and talks really need good dialogue or they are just really annoying). I lost all empathy with the characters. They stand on the runways to jump out of the way (why?), she flies dangerously to prove a point, and after this intense back and forth, they’re just so glib about it all. It’s at this point that I have a thought that sticks with me for most of the film: It feels like I’ve been dropped into the middle of a sitcom where I know none of the characters, and everything is sped up ad nauseam.
The interactions where the characters should be upset with each other are brushed aside for wacky dialogue. You can certainly tell that there’s frustration, but there’s a stream of insincere humor that buries it all.
(By the way, this is a problem that I have with a LOT of films. It’s difficult to show intimacy between characters, so a lot of writers take a cheap shortcut where they show the characters interacting through almost pure humor. I wouldn’t have an issue with it if inside jokes and sarcastic back and forths weren’t consistently used to the near absolute exclusion of any other sort of portrayal of personal closeness)
The scene with the dress and the dancing reinforced the sitcom tone. I felt like I should know something about all these characters, and have some sort of inside reference to why this moment was important, but all of this happens in the first 20 minutes. It was disorienting, and aggravating. And honestly it felt...off… seeing this group of co-workers go “hubba hubba” over their own. But different times I suppose. (The one that acted differently from the rest was Al, who gave Dorinda a big bear hug when he had the chance, setting up a specifically non-sexualized relationship, and instantly giving me the notion that he was going to survive and be close with Dorinda and not be seen as a romantic threat)
Love is like a forest fire….uuuuuuuuugghghghghghghghhgh
(My main problem here is that I hate it when characters in a movie seem to contextualize EVERYTHING via their known traits. It could have worked, but in this case it felt really clumsy)
Ultimately, the pacing up to Pete’s death prevented me from processing any emotion. That and the death and resurrection were all too quick.
Luckily, after that, the film actually slowed down a lot.
Hap guides Pete through the guardian angel situation, but it all feels pretty inconsequential. Time speeds up, well that’s just what happens! They also spend all this time setting up this guardian angel idea, but it never really goes anywhere. We see two total spirits except Pete (unless I’m missing something), one is Hap and the other is the bus driver who is brought back to life. Except for Hap’s direct influence on Pete, we have all this set-up without showing any other effects of these guardian angels except Pete’s story. It makes sense to concentrate, but it felt like a wasted concept when it wasn’t explored any more than that.
Goodman’s scene where he yells at Dorinda for giving up is probably the best in the film. It was so well acted and serious that it actually felt out of place in this film.
The scene with the homeless man selectively relaying Pete’s messages to Ted, causing Ted to do exactly what Pete did not want him to, was kinda cliche, but executed well enough that it was entertaining. It was cute and it wasn’t sped up to the point of nonsense.
The last section of the movie actually had good enough effects and intense enough shots that I stopped taking notes for a while. That was actually decent. There was some emotional depth to Pete helping Dorinda fly (though it really seemed like the amount of fire between the fire fighters and the river seemed trivial enough that they could find some way through without being injured, I didn’t buy that at all).
After saving the firefighters, the rest of the movie makes sure to (almost) always keep Pete in pale blue light, giving him a ghostly visage. I liked this touch, and I’m glad they fit it in organically rather than just “making him” blue because he’s a spirit. It also set-up up Dorinda stepping out of the moonlight as an effective visual.
It wasn’t until after viewing that I let myself look up details about the film, such as it being a remake of A Guy Named Joe, which explains a lot. From what I read, it was very similar in tone, except trading the war for forest fires.
I didn’t watch Joe, but I’m much more forgiving of that film, but because I view it as propaganda; it served a real public messaging purpose needed at the time. A lot of guys were dying in the war, and this type of film was aimed towards the widows, trying to help them move on from losing loved ones. I’m more forgiving because it really had to get that one point across, and it had to do so on a more limited time. Spielberg had been thinking about remaking Joe since Jaws (apparently), and I don’t feel he justified it with Always.
Overall, I didn’t care for Always, but I liked it MUCH more as the film went on. That said, I think it was a really interesting and good choice by GBG!
This would have all sounded smarter if I got to sneak it in between Yoda and bluedeed’s more knowledgeable criticisms, but here it is, all the same!
Also this is gonna be sorta disconnected, it’s coming from stream of conscious style notes. I tend to rely on other people keeping me on topic, so I apologize from the get go.
I’ll be a bit candid/harsh for a bit here, and say that I hated the first third of this movie. From the opening shot, where there was an honestly interesting shot of a plane dipping down into the lake to collect water, but then transitioned into a cheap gag. Right from that point, I was rooting against the pilot. It crossed that line between charming rogue and reckless endangerment.
Also I have in my notes, whatever happened to chewing gum? Dorinda is chewing very conspicuously. Maybe I’m imagining it, but I just remember chewing gum being EVERYWHERE in movies during my childhood (early 90’s). Was chewing gum actually that popular, or was chewing gum in this instance a PG analogy to chewing tobacco?
Netflix has a very spoiler filled tagline, so I knew going into the film that a pilot was going to die and act as a guardian angel. So strangely I went into the first sequence assuming he’d die (as opposed to the normal assumption of plot armor). Because of this, I was quite upset that it seemed like the headwinds turning against him suddenly was portrayed as the cause of his death, as in, sure he took risks, but that wind is just unfair! But then the wind turned back as Ted flew in (at this point, I made the mistaken assumption that Ted was the guardian angel pilot, which was quickly dispelled), still I didn’t really care for the device of the wind, but it was better than it being the cause of death.
When he lands, we’re treated to a walk and talk. And this is my least favorite section of the film (though I did learn that walk and talks really need good dialogue or they are just really annoying). I lost all empathy with the characters. They stand on the runways to jump out of the way (why?), she flies dangerously to prove a point, and after this intense back and forth, they’re just so glib about it all. It’s at this point that I have a thought that sticks with me for most of the film: It feels like I’ve been dropped into the middle of a sitcom where I know none of the characters, and everything is sped up ad nauseam.
The interactions where the characters should be upset with each other are brushed aside for wacky dialogue. You can certainly tell that there’s frustration, but there’s a stream of insincere humor that buries it all.
(By the way, this is a problem that I have with a LOT of films. It’s difficult to show intimacy between characters, so a lot of writers take a cheap shortcut where they show the characters interacting through almost pure humor. I wouldn’t have an issue with it if inside jokes and sarcastic back and forths weren’t consistently used to the near absolute exclusion of any other sort of portrayal of personal closeness)
The scene with the dress and the dancing reinforced the sitcom tone. I felt like I should know something about all these characters, and have some sort of inside reference to why this moment was important, but all of this happens in the first 20 minutes. It was disorienting, and aggravating. And honestly it felt...off… seeing this group of co-workers go “hubba hubba” over their own. But different times I suppose. (The one that acted differently from the rest was Al, who gave Dorinda a big bear hug when he had the chance, setting up a specifically non-sexualized relationship, and instantly giving me the notion that he was going to survive and be close with Dorinda and not be seen as a romantic threat)
Love is like a forest fire….uuuuuuuuugghghghghghghghhgh
(My main problem here is that I hate it when characters in a movie seem to contextualize EVERYTHING via their known traits. It could have worked, but in this case it felt really clumsy)
Ultimately, the pacing up to Pete’s death prevented me from processing any emotion. That and the death and resurrection were all too quick.
Luckily, after that, the film actually slowed down a lot.
Hap guides Pete through the guardian angel situation, but it all feels pretty inconsequential. Time speeds up, well that’s just what happens! They also spend all this time setting up this guardian angel idea, but it never really goes anywhere. We see two total spirits except Pete (unless I’m missing something), one is Hap and the other is the bus driver who is brought back to life. Except for Hap’s direct influence on Pete, we have all this set-up without showing any other effects of these guardian angels except Pete’s story. It makes sense to concentrate, but it felt like a wasted concept when it wasn’t explored any more than that.
Goodman’s scene where he yells at Dorinda for giving up is probably the best in the film. It was so well acted and serious that it actually felt out of place in this film.
The scene with the homeless man selectively relaying Pete’s messages to Ted, causing Ted to do exactly what Pete did not want him to, was kinda cliche, but executed well enough that it was entertaining. It was cute and it wasn’t sped up to the point of nonsense.
The last section of the movie actually had good enough effects and intense enough shots that I stopped taking notes for a while. That was actually decent. There was some emotional depth to Pete helping Dorinda fly (though it really seemed like the amount of fire between the fire fighters and the river seemed trivial enough that they could find some way through without being injured, I didn’t buy that at all).
After saving the firefighters, the rest of the movie makes sure to (almost) always keep Pete in pale blue light, giving him a ghostly visage. I liked this touch, and I’m glad they fit it in organically rather than just “making him” blue because he’s a spirit. It also set-up up Dorinda stepping out of the moonlight as an effective visual.
It wasn’t until after viewing that I let myself look up details about the film, such as it being a remake of A Guy Named Joe, which explains a lot. From what I read, it was very similar in tone, except trading the war for forest fires.
I didn’t watch Joe, but I’m much more forgiving of that film, but because I view it as propaganda; it served a real public messaging purpose needed at the time. A lot of guys were dying in the war, and this type of film was aimed towards the widows, trying to help them move on from losing loved ones. I’m more forgiving because it really had to get that one point across, and it had to do so on a more limited time. Spielberg had been thinking about remaking Joe since Jaws (apparently), and I don’t feel he justified it with Always.
Overall, I didn’t care for Always, but I liked it MUCH more as the film went on. That said, I think it was a really interesting and good choice by GBG!
This would have all sounded smarter if I got to sneak it in between Yoda and bluedeed’s more knowledgeable criticisms, but here it is, all the same!
Thank you for posting your thoughts about Always, but wow, that was a tough read.
It sounds like you liked the choice of movie because it's not one of those deep movies that gets over-analyzed all the time, but you didn't like the movie itself. 
It seems that a lot of the issues that you have with the movie are understandable issues, but IMO, they're also kind of nitpicky issues because they're minor issues, (at least to me). I can overlook these types of issues and focus on the romantic side of the movie. That's what I love most about this movie, but it seems to be lost in your review.
We only see Hap and Pete as spirits because the story isn't about guardian angels in general. It's about one specific guy who becomes a guardian angel, and the fact that the guy who he's supposed to be helping is the guy who's going out with his girl. The conflict he's going through of trying to help Ted while watching Dorinda and not being able to stop her budding romance is what makes this movie so emotional.
I always felt that the scene with the bus driver was supposed to make Ted a likeable guy, so we want to see him and Dorinda end up together, but it doesn't really work for me because Brad Johnson made the character too unlikeable before we even get to that point in the movie. He's just such a dull character, that it makes me want to see Pete and Dorinda back together, but obviously, that's not going to happen.
I would have loved to hear a commentary on this movie to see if the other people felt the same way as you did about it, but sadly, that's not going to happen.
Hopefully if, or when, they watch it, they will post their thoughts here too. If you ever watch A Guy Named Joe, I'd be interested in reading your review of it. I'm curious if the same basic story, but set in wartime, would be a better movie for you.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Thank you for posting your thoughts about Always, but wow, that was a tough read. It sounds like you liked the choice of movie because it's not one of those deep movies that gets over-analyzed all the time, but you didn't like the movie itself.
It sounds like you liked the choice of movie because it's not one of those deep movies that gets over-analyzed all the time, but you didn't like the movie itself. If you ever watch A Guy Named Joe, I'd be interested in reading your review of it. I'm curious if the same basic story, but set in wartime, would be a better movie for you.
I do think that I'll automatically give it more credit. Kinda like how I think the pro-intervention in Europe aspects of Casablanca feel kinda tacked on, but I forgive it a bit because of the temptation of propaganda during wartime (and possibly the justification for the film in the first place).
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
|
|