Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: 1930s (Results), 1972 (Jun 18th), 1954 awards (Jun 22nd), 2010s (Jun 28th)
Challenges: 1950s, Eastern Europe, Banned Films
Film of the Week: Scandal Sheet, July nominations (Jun 28th)

Movie Pet Hates

Post Reply
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

Movie Pet Hates

#321

Post by xianjiro » May 18th, 2017, 10:22 pm

Sure it's been mentioned before, but thought about this one the other day - the Australian series Wentworth provoked me.

One of the guards goes to the 'evil' warden and confronts her saying he has plenty of evidence to get her fired because she's a psychopath. Granted, her comeback was choice, something like, I'd ask myself what a psycho would do with that knowledge. Of course the guy runs around trying to reach another guy (and warn him) but doesn't really deliver his information in time - he ends up on the wrong end of an encounter with a delivery van.

Why don't characters ever just go to the authorities when they've 'got the goods'? Why is it always the big confrontation with the baddy?

And likewise, the related 'I know you killed my lover. Now I'm going to take my revenge.'

Why don't they just do it, dammit!

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22790
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#322

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 18th, 2017, 10:40 pm

Pride, hubris, the power trip, overconfidence, and/or, occasionally, a sense of fair play. It can certainly be annoying to watch, especially when the structure of a film makes it obvious what will happen, but the underlying psychological motivation is pretty natural.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3471
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#323

Post by OldAle1 » May 21st, 2017, 6:29 pm

The undeserved happy ending: where a character(s) acts like a douchebag throughout the film, or is given choices that s/he must make, but at the end there's a cop-out and the protagonist (usually it's the protagonist) gets exactly what is desired without having to make any of the sacrifices that the film showed us as necessary. A case in point is Ron Howard's execrable The Paper,
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
where we are told all along that Michael Keaton is going to have to choose between his insane dedication to his job, and his wife, and at the end - without making any real compromises - he gets to have both.
At least that's the way I remember it - if I'm off a bit please let me know. But in any case this is not the only example, it's something we see in rom-coms frequently as well - two people who are shallow, obnoxious, selfish end up together and end up becoming better people without any effort being shown. I love a good happy ending as much as anybody, but to my mind it needs to be earned.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#324

Post by RedHawk10 » May 21st, 2017, 9:53 pm

Exposition dumps. There is NOTHING that takes me out of a movie like this. Pretty much single-handedly killed Inception for me.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#325

Post by joachimt » May 28th, 2017, 11:43 am

So many of these noirs from the 40's make me believe the legal system was very flawed in those days (or maybe it was and even still is?). In half of these movies there is someone being charged of a crime or convicted, almost executed, based on circumstantial evidence. I understand the story would be less interesting as a movie in some cases, but seriously, sometimes it's just too silly to be believable. "The footprints on the crime scene match your shoes and you're spending a lot of money suddenly that you didn't have last week. Yep, you're guilty. To the chair with you."
:facepalm:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#326

Post by joachimt » May 28th, 2017, 1:53 pm

A guy losing his job and not telling his wife when he gets home. I've never been able to feel for a character who acts this way to his wife.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
zuma
Donator
Posts: 1893
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

#327

Post by zuma » May 28th, 2017, 2:14 pm

joachimt on May 28 2017, 05:43:49 AM wrote:So many of these noirs from the 40's make me believe the legal system was very flawed in those days (or maybe it was and even still is?). In half of these movies there is someone being charged of a crime or convicted, almost executed, based on circumstantial evidence. I understand the story would be less interesting as a movie in some cases, but seriously, sometimes it's just too silly to be believable. "The footprints on the crime scene match your shoes and you're spending a lot of money suddenly that you didn't have last week. Yep, you're guilty. To the chair with you."
:facepalm:
Reality is just as stupid:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as- ... -1.4079705

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#328

Post by joachimt » May 28th, 2017, 2:28 pm

zuma on May 28 2017, 08:14:12 AM wrote:
joachimt on May 28 2017, 05:43:49 AM wrote:So many of these noirs from the 40's make me believe the legal system was very flawed in those days (or maybe it was and even still is?). In half of these movies there is someone being charged of a crime or convicted, almost executed, based on circumstantial evidence. I understand the story would be less interesting as a movie in some cases, but seriously, sometimes it's just too silly to be believable. "The footprints on the crime scene match your shoes and you're spending a lot of money suddenly that you didn't have last week. Yep, you're guilty. To the chair with you."
:facepalm:
Reality is just as stupid:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as- ... -1.4079705
Yeah, I know it happens in real life. It's terrible to read how things can go wrong.
With movies, I don't actually mind a story like that always. Last week I watched a movie, which was called Circumstantial evidence and it was even quite a decent movie. The evidence was at least rather convincing, so it wasn't hard to believe both sides of the story and therefor the movie succeeded in telling us how important it is to keep an open mind and judge the hard evidence rather than to judge what you think that might have happened.
In the movie I talked about above that didn't succeed at all, because the case was too silly to begin with.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#329

Post by joachimt » June 10th, 2017, 6:09 pm

joachimt on May 28 2017, 05:43:49 AM wrote:So many of these noirs from the 40's make me believe the legal system was very flawed in those days (or maybe it was and even still is?). In half of these movies there is someone being charged of a crime or convicted, almost executed, based on circumstantial evidence. I understand the story would be less interesting as a movie in some cases, but seriously, sometimes it's just too silly to be believable. "The footprints on the crime scene match your shoes and you're spending a lot of money suddenly that you didn't have last week. Yep, you're guilty. To the chair with you."
:facepalm:
Watching another noir right now, which could easily have the title "circumstantial evidence" as well. This case is even worse than the one with the footprints.

One girl is murdered and another attacked. The murdered girl hold a highschool-graduation pin in her hand. The police assumes she ripped it off the killer's clothes. They pick up ONE guy who graduated that year. He can't find his own pin anymore (graduation was ten years ago) and since he can't proof his alibi, the police books him for murder. "You're in big trouble!"

COME ON!! This is ridiculous!!
:facepalm:
Last edited by joachimt on June 10th, 2017, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3471
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#330

Post by OldAle1 » June 11th, 2017, 5:17 pm

RedHawk10 on May 21 2017, 03:53:44 PM wrote:Exposition dumps. There is NOTHING that takes me out of a movie like this. Pretty much single-handedly killed Inception for me.
Nolan is almost always guilty of over-explaining, though he often does it in a slightly more circumspect way - probably a big part of why he's especially popular among high school/college age viewers - but as much as I dislike this it usually isn't a total killer for me. Inception and TDKR were the exceptions for sure, though both had plenty of other problems. I picked up the BD of the former for $2 or $3 at a thrift shop anyway though, I suspect a re-watch may prove worthwhile in this case even if I still don't like it. Don't know that I'll ever bother with the Batman films again.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3471
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#331

Post by OldAle1 » June 11th, 2017, 5:23 pm

joachimt on Jun 10 2017, 12:09:42 PM wrote:
joachimt on May 28 2017, 05:43:49 AM wrote:So many of these noirs from the 40's make me believe the legal system was very flawed in those days (or maybe it was and even still is?). In half of these movies there is someone being charged of a crime or convicted, almost executed, based on circumstantial evidence. I understand the story would be less interesting as a movie in some cases, but seriously, sometimes it's just too silly to be believable. "The footprints on the crime scene match your shoes and you're spending a lot of money suddenly that you didn't have last week. Yep, you're guilty. To the chair with you."
:facepalm:
Watching another noir right now, which could easily have the title "circumstantial evidence" as well. This case is even worse than the one with the footprints.

One girl is murdered and another attacked. The murdered girl hold a highschool-graduation pin in her hand. The police assumes she ripped it off the killer's clothes. They pick up ONE guy who graduated that year. He can't find his own pin anymore (graduation was ten years ago) and since he can't proof his alibi, the police books him for murder. "You're in big trouble!"

COME ON!! This is ridiculous!!
:facepalm:
I can understand the problem, but I guess it rarely bothers me; for one thing our justice system IS incredibly flawed, and people have very often been executed based solely on circumstantial evidence. When you have a system that places more emphasis - far, far more emphasis - on punishment than on addressing the root causes of crime (like poverty or easy access to guns, which most conservatives in the USA adamantly refuse to admit have anything whatsoever to do with crime), it's easy to see why police forces very often feel the need to catch *somebody* and put him/her away on even the flimsiest of evidence.

I'm in danger of getting too political, but having spent my whole life in the USA I guess I have a very high tolerance for what a lot of people seem to think is unrealistic in these noirs. Which film are you discussing in this instance, anyway?
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#332

Post by joachimt » June 11th, 2017, 6:34 pm

OldAle1 on Jun 11 2017, 11:23:29 AM wrote:
joachimt on Jun 10 2017, 12:09:42 PM wrote:
joachimt on May 28 2017, 05:43:49 AM wrote:So many of these noirs from the 40's make me believe the legal system was very flawed in those days (or maybe it was and even still is?). In half of these movies there is someone being charged of a crime or convicted, almost executed, based on circumstantial evidence. I understand the story would be less interesting as a movie in some cases, but seriously, sometimes it's just too silly to be believable. "The footprints on the crime scene match your shoes and you're spending a lot of money suddenly that you didn't have last week. Yep, you're guilty. To the chair with you."
:facepalm:
Watching another noir right now, which could easily have the title "circumstantial evidence" as well. This case is even worse than the one with the footprints.

One girl is murdered and another attacked. The murdered girl hold a highschool-graduation pin in her hand. The police assumes she ripped it off the killer's clothes. They pick up ONE guy who graduated that year. He can't find his own pin anymore (graduation was ten years ago) and since he can't proof his alibi, the police books him for murder. "You're in big trouble!"

COME ON!! This is ridiculous!!
:facepalm:
I can understand the problem, but I guess it rarely bothers me; for one thing our justice system IS incredibly flawed, and people have very often been executed based solely on circumstantial evidence. When you have a system that places more emphasis - far, far more emphasis - on punishment than on addressing the root causes of crime (like poverty or easy access to guns, which most conservatives in the USA adamantly refuse to admit have anything whatsoever to do with crime), it's easy to see why police forces very often feel the need to catch *somebody* and put him/her away on even the flimsiest of evidence.

I'm in danger of getting too political, but having spent my whole life in the USA I guess I have a very high tolerance for what a lot of people seem to think is unrealistic in these noirs. Which film are you discussing in this instance, anyway?
In the last case I was talking about Crime Against Joe.

I know there are a lot of flaw in the real legal system, but I do want to see some logical ground to arrest a person in a movie. A few weeks ago I watched a noir called Circumstantial evidence and that movie had the purpose of showing the audience how flawed the legal system can be and you shouldn't rely too much on witness statements. However, in that movie the accused was seen quarreling with the victim, he was seen chasing after him and he was seen raising an ax and striking it down at the same moment the victim got fatally injured. Now that's not circumstantial evidence anymore. That was a motive, an opportunity and witnesses who thought they saw what was happening and the whole point of the movie was about "what do witnesses actually see". This is a good point relating to the legal system in the real world, because that's how a lot of flaws occur and wrong people are sent to jail or even be executed (read a few pages back in this thread).

In Crime Against Joe the only proof the police has is a graduation pin from a certain year. There were 87 graduates from that year, but they pick up one guy and to them he's guilty because he can't give a proper alibi. There was no motive. The only witness (the girl who was attacked, but survived) says "I'm not sure, it was dark, it could have been him". It's hard for me to believe any real police investigator would be that stupid to be so certain he's got the killer.
So yeah, that killed the movie for me, because the whole plot was based on this.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3471
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#333

Post by OldAle1 » June 11th, 2017, 6:44 pm

That does sound pretty stupid; and I'd never heard of that film - rare that an American classic-era noir has so escaped my attention (there are plenty I haven't seen, but usually the names are at least familiar). Doesn't have a director or cast that is particularly intriguing so it'll probably be a low-priority watch, unless I decide to seek it out now to continue this conversation.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6512
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#334

Post by 3eyes » June 14th, 2017, 3:12 am

This is not strictly about the content of movies, but about presentation: The DVD disclaimers that say "the interviews and commentary are for entertainment purposes only...." So we split our sides over the commentaries on Shoah, Hotel Rwanda, The Act of Killing, etc....
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

kurisu1974
Posts: 9
Joined: Dec 16, 2013
Contact:

#335

Post by kurisu1974 » June 21st, 2017, 3:11 pm

RedHawk10 on May 21 2017, 03:53:44 PM wrote:Exposition dumps. There is NOTHING that takes me out of a movie like this. Pretty much single-handedly killed Inception for me.
Even worse when the exposition makes no sense and you're still left with 1000 questions on how and why the stuff in the movie works like shown.
Last edited by kurisu1974 on June 21st, 2017, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#336

Post by xianjiro » June 21st, 2017, 7:44 pm

how about explosion dumps? you know, when a bicycle hits a car and they both explode in flames! :rolleyes:

the other thing that I laugh at is the gunfights - good guys never miss, even a penny at half a mile, while the bad guys rarely seem to find their target, even when it's a tractor trailer they can reach out and touch. Such a silly action trope that seems to be in every damn action movie I watch. :huh:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#337

Post by joachimt » June 29th, 2017, 11:21 am

A girl dressed as a boy, but nobody in the movie realizes it's actually a girl. However, for the audience it's completely clear from the first sight. Then later in the movie the secret is revealed and presented as a big surprise: "Oh my, it's a girl!!"

In addition to that, once the secret is revealed, all the boys fall in love with her.
*sigh*
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#338

Post by xianjiro » June 29th, 2017, 4:12 pm

yeah, that crap's been flying at least since Shakespeare's time - so hard to 'believe' most of the time and sometimes, downright offensive

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 5193
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#339

Post by albajos » June 29th, 2017, 5:37 pm

joachimt on Jun 29 2017, 05:21:46 AM wrote:A girl dressed as a boy, but nobody in the movie realizes it's actually a girl. However, for the audience it's completely clear from the first sight. Then later in the movie the secret is revealed and presented as a big surprise: "Oh my, it's a girl!!"

In addition to that, once the secret is revealed, all the boys fall in love with her.
*sigh*
White Chicks much?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#340

Post by xianjiro » June 29th, 2017, 6:32 pm

albajos on Jun 29 2017, 11:37:48 AM wrote:
joachimt on Jun 29 2017, 05:21:46 AM wrote:A girl dressed as a boy, but nobody in the movie realizes it's actually a girl. However, for the audience it's completely clear from the first sight. Then later in the movie the secret is revealed and presented as a big surprise: "Oh my, it's a girl!!"

In addition to that, once the secret is revealed, all the boys fall in love with her.
*sigh*
White Chicks much?
or Bosom Buddies (1980)

representative (reprehensible?) photo

okay, I get back in the early trans-sensitivity was zero - hopefully we won't be subjected to any more of this sort of stuff :huh:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 5193
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#341

Post by albajos » June 29th, 2017, 7:30 pm

xianjiro on Jun 29 2017, 12:32:32 PM wrote:
albajos on Jun 29 2017, 11:37:48 AM wrote:
joachimt on Jun 29 2017, 05:21:46 AM wrote:A girl dressed as a boy, but nobody in the movie realizes it's actually a girl. However, for the audience it's completely clear from the first sight. Then later in the movie the secret is revealed and presented as a big surprise: "Oh my, it's a girl!!"

In addition to that, once the secret is revealed, all the boys fall in love with her.
*sigh*
White Chicks much?
or Bosom Buddies (1980)

representative (reprehensible?) photo

okay, I get back in the early trans-sensitivity was zero - hopefully we won't be subjected to any more of this sort of stuff :huh:
Well, in White Chicks they don't even look human, and still fool everyone. Maybe it's a joke to all those others crossdressing comedies that shouldn't really fool anyone? If so that is the only joke with a point in the whole movie.

By the way. Hoffman on pretending to be a woman in Tootsie (I really need to see that again)
https://youtu.be/xPAat-T1uhE

(to be fair, he does look better as a woman without the wig (but with eyeliner), but nobody looked good with a perm in the 80s (or any other decade)
Last edited by albajos on June 29th, 2017, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6512
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#342

Post by 3eyes » July 1st, 2017, 1:46 am

Just tried, and failed, to watch Arrival. I just don't get this fad for shooting half the movie in pitch darkness. OK, so they don't have to worry about wasting film any more. but that's no excuse. TIME TO BRING BACK TINTING!
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 108
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#343

Post by Darth Nevets » July 2nd, 2017, 4:21 pm

This may be either something already mentioned or too minor for most, but I really hate the sound mixing for drinking in movies. Apparently every movie character makes a sharp sip followed by a gargle followed by a hesitant gulp. Its like the sound editor had a series of buttons labeled "cartoon drinks" and mashed all of them every single time.

dirty_score
Posts: 193
Joined: Oct 10, 2016
Contact:

#344

Post by dirty_score » July 22nd, 2017, 6:24 pm

I don't know if this is already covered (didn't read all 9 pages) but in sports movies, the last adversary is always arrogant and mean to the main character/team. If at the third act you don't sympathize with the main character/team (which is the driving force of this genre) then making the last opponent an asshole will not make things better. :verymad:

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#345

Post by xianjiro » July 22nd, 2017, 11:01 pm

Liam Neeson

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Carmel1379
Donator
Posts: 4325
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
Location: ∅ ⋁ ⋀ ∞ | myself am Hell
Contact:

#346

Post by Carmel1379 » January 31st, 2018, 6:00 am

Not a "hate", and it is rather cool-looking, but I was reminded of this thread, so I might as well revive it.

Characters that extremely swiftly take off their glasses (especially the ones designed for hyperopia) using one hand. Didn't the characters' grandmas ever teach them that taking their glasses off with one hand is bad for those expensive glasses?
IMDb, letterboxd, tumblr
Image
whom shall we find
Sufficient? who shall tempt with wand’ring feet
The dark unbottom’d infinite Abyss,
And through the palpable obscure find out
His uncouth way, or spread his aerie flight,
Upborn with indefatigable wings,
Over the vast abrupt, ere he arrive
The happy Ile?

Nur dein Auge – ungeheuer / Blickt michs an, Unendlichkeit!
Close the world. ʇxǝu ǝɥʇ uǝdO.
t o B e c o n t i n u e d

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29180
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#347

Post by mightysparks » January 31st, 2018, 6:06 am

I can't remember if this one's been mentioned, but characters putting on their glasses to talk about or listen to something serious.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#348

Post by joachimt » April 24th, 2018, 12:34 pm

Why don't people just turn on the lights in horror movies? <_<
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6512
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#349

Post by 3eyes » April 24th, 2018, 2:21 pm

Not a hate, but the glasses thing reminded me of (aside from Robert Stack in Airplane!) my childhood bemusement when Tarzan went swimming right after eating instead of waiting an hour.
Last edited by 3eyes on April 24th, 2018, 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 3387
Joined: Jan 03, 2016
Contact:

#350

Post by weirdboy » April 24th, 2018, 3:01 pm

mightysparks on Jan 30 2018, 11:06:00 PM wrote:I can't remember if this one's been mentioned, but characters putting on their glasses to talk about or listen to something serious.
YEEEAAAAAHHH

Image

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#351

Post by joachimt » April 24th, 2018, 5:02 pm

Characters leaving doors open that you normally close.
Characters who put down a bag on a random spot to walk on without it, although it would make perfect sense to keep carrying it. Last time I saw this was in Annihilation at the beach. No idea why she put down her backpack.

I'm not sure if I find those two things more annoying if it serves a plot purpose or not.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#352

Post by xianjiro » April 24th, 2018, 5:05 pm

joachimt on Apr 24 2018, 06:34:37 AM wrote:Why don't people just turn on the lights in horror movies? <_<
and why do they always seem to run upstairs?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#353

Post by xianjiro » April 24th, 2018, 5:06 pm

3eyes on Apr 24 2018, 08:21:29 AM wrote:Not a hate, but the glasses thing reminded me of (aside from Robert Stack in Airplane!) my childhood bemusement when Tarzan went swimming right after eating instead of waiting an hour.
huh, and I always thought his jungle yell was his superpower - guess I was wrong

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6166
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#354

Post by xianjiro » June 6th, 2018, 9:48 am

dark lipstick on men in early silent films - gross! - it's even stranger when his lips are darker than his leading lady

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8110
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#355

Post by jvv » June 30th, 2018, 1:07 pm

Speaking of early silent films:

Someone is secretly following someone; keeps a distance of about 1.5 to 2 meters; doesn't get noticed. :rolleyes:

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28356
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#356

Post by joachimt » June 30th, 2018, 2:04 pm

This week I saw somebody in a movie eating a cooked asparagus. Taking a bite made the sound of a breaking raw carrot. Apparently the director never ate asparagus's himself.


Mentioned before I think, but last week I saw a terrible example of this:
Bad guy says to good guy he's going to kill him and gives him the chance to run away. In front of them is a long stretched open field of several hundreds meters long. On the side of this stretched field is a forest on both sides, which is roughly 40-50 meters away from them. In which direction those the good guy decide to run? Of course, in a straight line for several hundred meters over the open field.
:facepalm:
Last edited by joachimt on June 30th, 2018, 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Mario Gaborović
Posts: 3092
Joined: Apr 11, 2014
Location: Pančevo
Contact:

#357

Post by Mario Gaborović » June 30th, 2018, 2:09 pm

When people lie in bed with their shoes. Which makes it even more odd since they're all living in tidy American households, with clean kitchens and polished furniture, so how the hell they keep their sheets clean, and why would anyone bother with mud each time upon arrival home if he/she can just take his fucking shoes off???

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29180
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#358

Post by mightysparks » June 30th, 2018, 2:26 pm

xianjiro on Apr 24 2018, 11:05:07 AM wrote:
joachimt on Apr 24 2018, 06:34:37 AM wrote:Why don't people just turn on the lights in horror movies? <_<
and why do they always seem to run upstairs?
Some time ago, one of my housemates was messing around and pretending to chase and scare me. At one point I literally ran straight into the wall and just gave up. I was like 'wow I watch so many horror movies and I could've ran down two different hallways and I just went straight to the wall'. People really do act stupidly under pressure :whistling:
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3471
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#359

Post by OldAle1 » June 30th, 2018, 2:48 pm

Last night I watched Black Widow - or re-watched it, I had it rated and I really feel like I did see it, likely on VHS in the late 80s, but I had essentially no memory of it. It's full of stupid shit but a couple of related key plot failures stand out. I'm not gonna put up spoiler tags because there isn't really any suspense in this theoretically suspenseful film, we know Theresa Russell is a killer from literally the first moments of the film.

1 - So Debra Winger is the Justice Department investigator who figures out that Russell is murdering wealthy men for their money. She's a desk jockey and begs to get the assignment to track her down, even though she's never been in the field and this is a skillfull murderer we're talking about. Of course she's allowed to go off on her own with no back-up at all and virtually no contact with the home office, particularly once she follows Russell to Hawaii - for months.

2 - she allows herself to be in danger being totally alone with Russell in isolated locations numerous times. This element could be explained I suppose by the apparent attraction she feels to the killer, but still - an investigator with 6 years experience just hangs out with a serial killer on isolated beaches or in other non-public spaces, time and again, knowing that the killer is smart and resourceful (uh, y'know, she might be on to you Debra!).

It's not a horrible film but this level of stupidity on the level of the main character, and law enforcement in general basically kills any chance of it being worthwhile apart from the acting (some of it) and Conrad Hall's beautiful images.
Here's to the fools who dream.

dirty_score
Posts: 193
Joined: Oct 10, 2016
Contact:

#360

Post by dirty_score » June 30th, 2018, 10:10 pm

I think this one was posted before because is an usual ocurrence:

When the main villain catches the hero and has the chance to kill him but says to his henchmen: "take him to the back (or whatever place) and kill him" and goes away.

You KNOW they're not gonna kill him and the hero will survive somehow.

Post Reply