115Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSaw 12 angry men.
Spoiler for those who havn't seen this classic- there are a lot of angry men in the movie.
Anger gets overdone and is somewhat one dimensional at times, but a good flick.
Saw 12 angry men.
Spoiler for those who havn't seen this classic- there are a lot of angry men in the movie.
Anger gets overdone and is somewhat one dimensional at times, but a good flick.
Proudly against the bring back Bennett movement since he is injury prone and won't last 5 days.Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed
Watched Under The Skin last week, interesting film, thought it was alright but every other opinion on it seems to be either masterpiece or diabolical.
It's a great movie to explain to people in a sentence or so though 'Scarlett Johnannson plays an alien who drives around Scotland in a white van picking up single men then taking them back her dungeon and harvesting their skin'
I too thought it was alright, I liked the candid stuff, the sound was brilliant and Scar-Jo was great, but otherwise it just seemed a little hollow, and we've kind of been here before, notabl with that one Bowie film he was good in.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
Walt Whitman
DWTA. The amount of anger was appropriate for the 12 men under the circumstances.
Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!
It's a great and important film. Every time I think of how juries work I think about it, and how things could change on one or two people. The anger of the times was surely reflected perfectly in the film.
God I love this movie. Don't think the anger was overdone... Well maybe the climax was a tad too much. But seriously a great movie. Especially love how they manage to make all the jurors distinct personalities and not just generic dudes. Favorite is the one who always stays as logical and practical as possible and doesn't sway to emotion at all.
Seen it loads of times and never get bored.
Which one did you see? There was a remake in the 90s. I think the 1957 one was a classic, but I actually like the remake too.
★★★★★
The movie wasn't logical and practical vs emotional. It was fair minded vs prejudiced. There's a distinction - you can be prejudiced and yet *seem* logical and practical (i.e, unemotional) all the same.
Err, I was only taking about that juror in particular, not the movie as a whole. That juror (I think #4) was genuinely logical and practical all the way through.
Haven't seen the 1990s version yet, might check it out.
There's actually a Hindi remake too, called "Ek ruka hua faisla" which is pretty well done .
He was not prejudiced while everyone else was, which was the entire point of the movie.
Again,you're getting the jurors mixed up. Pretty sure you're talking about the main guy, who was juror#8. The bloke I'm talking about is juror#4... the guy with the spectacles who is the penultimate one to get convinced by the others.
Yeah, I did get them mixed up. I just googled #4, he's a perfect example of latent prejudice.
Saw it yesterday and thought it was great
Reckon Dave Bautista could become a huge action star if given the right vehicles (i.e. not more WWE movie ****e) as the guy can actually act and has great screen presence
+1 on the GOTG love.I'm Groot.
Parmi
Avatar now by choice. 5-0 in the Ashes and all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote