Maybe you have to be a New Yorker to appreciate this but
-
getwreckedwith6 — 20 years ago(May 31, 2005 03:07 PM)
PERFECT! seriously what a movie overall..the best ending ever..i mean who wouldnt want to be one of themit was so great.and the frozen shot at the very end..just perfect..actually i think i'll get out the old one taped of the tv from about ten years ago!
-
FurBallsUnite — 20 years ago(June 21, 2005 01:07 AM)
Paramount has a problem with not putting any good extras on their DVDs, though. The South Park movie was made in 1999, and the extras were crappy: three simple trailers.
Boo to Paramount for not including good extras. -
DreTam2000 — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 04:09 AM)
This film came on recently, and it's another one of many that I grew up watching. But this time I was assessing and analyzing it from a different angle, on a different plane, in a different dimension. Many people don't realize there was a science to these certain sorts of films back then. Everything blended together to make the scenes and the film the precise whole that it was.
As I watched that final scene, I said, "It's not that today's films can't pull off a scene like this today. It's just that, it would be highly unlikely, because the entire production (everyone from the head exec down to the director and even composer) does not put in the same level of thought and vision in developmental phase and pre-production anymore."
It's a bizarre scene in an odd and bizarre film in an era with lots of other perfectly made bizarre movies. Their quirks and off-the-wall deliveries made up the spirit of the artistic filmmaking culture at the time.
That final scene in this film, is indeed a romantic one of the ages, but it is rugged in how it explores crowded New York culture as the two protagonists have to communicate to eachother through strangers in a cramped subway. But the simple dialogue, the music in the background, the down-to-earth quality of the moment and how it is all delivered, is a science that I think largely came naturally to filmmakers back then. It's why you saw so many films executed in the same fashion up until a certain point. Today's films do not tackle scene after scene in this way. There's a layer missing from today's movies (two of the primary aspects are tone and pacing).
Today's movies are often even less simple than they should be. But films can be approached and executed today in a similar fashion if everyone in charge would get on board and on the same page.
It's not that a classic such as this is necessarily better than today's films. It's that, it's directed with a certain cinematic style, charm, and simplicity that is important to films and the majestic tones that can radiate from them when delivered a certain way.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
tootster — 19 years ago(December 26, 2006 05:28 PM)
Hi There, I love this movie and the sequels..I downloaded the theme song a few years back and still have it in my hard drive. It is by Peter Best, Crocodile Dundee Theme. If you have limewire set up which is the latest where you can download MP3's etc, type in those keywords and see what you can come up with. All the best :O) Let me know how you go.
-
-
SpecialAgentScully — 20 years ago(September 25, 2005 02:01 PM)
Ya, the subway looks pretty filthy there. Is that how it actually is? How can it be so dirty, when other cities manage to have much cleaner ones? London, Paris, Toronto, Washington D.C., etc., etc., etc. all have cleaner subways how??
-
SpecialAgentScully — 20 years ago(September 30, 2005 03:55 PM)
Okay, but what does crime have to do with removing dirt from the subway system?!? I'm not talking about graffiti, I'm just talking about dirt, dust, garbage, and debris blown about by the wind down there. The subway system could set aside a portion of its profits to hire some people to sweep out the stations. I think part of the problem is allowing passengers to eat/drink on the platforms and in the cars (carriages). NYC allows that, correct? That's how much of the garbage gets there. This is not allowed on the Washington, D.C. 'Metro' system and that's why it's much cleaner.
-
mochaduck — 20 years ago(October 30, 2005 04:17 PM)
You're allowed to eat/drink on the Montreal and Toronto subways, but they're still pretty darned clean. Maybe we're just more prone to using garbage cans and recycling bins instead of littering than New York
-
SpecialAgentScully — 20 years ago(November 20, 2005 02:08 PM)
Do Montreal and Toronto have garbage cans in their subway stations? Just curious. I think New York took theirs out because people could plant bombs in them. Washington took their garbage cans out of the stations after 9-11, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars putting bomb-proof garbage cans in there. Maybe NYC doesn't have the $$$ for that, but then they should forbid eating & drinking.
Hunting isn't a sport In a sport, both sides
know
they're playing. -
Rocketer — 19 years ago(December 29, 2006 07:43 AM)
Remember that this movie was released 20 years ago. The NYC subways in the 70s and 80s were pretty gruesome. In the Rudy Giuliani era the subways (and a lot of other institutions) improved greatly. Under his successor Bloomberg the trend has continued. The graffiti is only a fraction of what it used to be.
They're still crowded as hell, and on a steamy day in August, almost as hot (on some lines, at least).
The one change for the worse, of course, is the skyline. Looking at the shots with the twin towers in them I was struck by how we could not have known they would be gone in just 15 years.
