After watching The Conversation (1974) and discussing it here, and having so many think that Gene Hackman's character is what Henry Caul would have evolved into, made a point of seeing this one. I give it **** out of five stars.
What I liked about it: I'm not really into action/chase scenes, so not talking about those scenes, but in general the scenes seemed much more..umm lively than in The Conversation. Will Smith is always fun to watch and keeps those scenes interesting. Also liked many of the supporting characters and their personality.
Voight always plays a great villain. Can't remember which big snake movie, Python?, he was in as the villain, but that was the only bright spot of that movie.
Gene Hackman. If I assume this is what became of Caul, in this film I got to know his personality a lot better in a much shorter time.
What I didn't like about it: For some reason from the previews I expected Hackman's character to first make contact with Smith's character over the phone and to be directing him how to elude his followers. Just kept waiting for that scene and realized it wasn't going to happen. Probably my own misperception of the previews.
Overall, I enjoyed this much more than the Conversation and could have enjoyed an entire 2 hour film about Hackman's character in this film rather than the one we were given in the Conversation.
--
-- Dennis/Endy9 ~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here. You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon --
On Nov 4, 1:33 pm, "Endymion9" <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Voight always plays a great villain. Can't remember which big snake movie, > Python?, he was in as the villain, but that was the only bright spot of that > movie.
And the best thing about it was Jennifer Lopez's big booty.
Voight was OK in that bu the way he screwed up his face and the accent he used grated my neses too much.
one thng abouthte protag in 'the Conversation', (a film Ihad just seen for the 1st time, recently) was that he was not supposed to be a very likable guy. Now a days we are very familiar w/ the social outcast loaner type geeky boy but that was him, all grown up, in the SIxties (?)
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:33:42 -0600, Endymion9 <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote: >After watching The Conversation (1974) and discussing it here, and having so >many think that Gene Hackman's character is what Henry Caul would have >evolved into, made a point of seeing this one. I give it **** out of five >stars. >What I liked about it: >I'm not really into action/chase scenes, so not talking about those scenes, >but in general the scenes seemed much more..umm lively than in The >Conversation. Will Smith is always fun to watch and keeps those scenes >interesting. Also liked many of the supporting characters and their >personality. >Voight always plays a great villain. Can't remember which big snake movie, >Python?, he was in as the villain, but that was the only bright spot of that >movie. >Gene Hackman. If I assume this is what became of Caul, in this film I got >to know his personality a lot better in a much shorter time. >What I didn't like about it: >For some reason from the previews I expected Hackman's character to first >make contact with Smith's character over the phone and to be directing him >how to elude his followers. Just kept waiting for that scene and realized >it wasn't going to happen. Probably my own misperception of the previews.
I'm surprised you didn't mention such idiotic scenes such as taking a camera view and then running it through image processing software to enlarge a single pixel into a 1600x1200 photo, or using that software to do a 180 degree rotation on the image to show what was behind and out of view of the camera? I also like how using that same software could provide a satellite view of a car's license plate.
AZ Nomad wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:33:42 -0600, Endymion9 <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote: >> After watching The Conversation (1974) and discussing it here, and having so >> many think that Gene Hackman's character is what Henry Caul would have >> evolved into, made a point of seeing this one. I give it **** out of five >> stars.
>> What I liked about it: >> I'm not really into action/chase scenes, so not talking about those scenes, >> but in general the scenes seemed much more..umm lively than in The >> Conversation. Will Smith is always fun to watch and keeps those scenes >> interesting. Also liked many of the supporting characters and their >> personality.
>> Voight always plays a great villain. Can't remember which big snake movie, >> Python?, he was in as the villain, but that was the only bright spot of that >> movie.
>> Gene Hackman. If I assume this is what became of Caul, in this film I got >> to know his personality a lot better in a much shorter time.
>> What I didn't like about it: >> For some reason from the previews I expected Hackman's character to first >> make contact with Smith's character over the phone and to be directing him >> how to elude his followers. Just kept waiting for that scene and realized >> it wasn't going to happen. Probably my own misperception of the previews.
> I'm surprised you didn't mention such idiotic scenes such as taking > a camera view and then running it through image processing software to > enlarge a single pixel into a 1600x1200 photo, or using that software to > do a 180 degree rotation on the image to show what was behind and out of > view of the camera? I also like how using that same software could provide > a satellite view of a car's license plate.
It's amazing how cool software they have in Hollywood.
On Nov 4, 5:33 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> I'm surprised you didn't mention such idiotic scenes such as taking > a camera view and then running it through image processing software to > enlarge a single pixel into a 1600x1200 photo, or using that software to > do a 180 degree rotation on the image to show what was behind and out of > view of the camera? I also like how using that same software could provide > a satellite view of a car's license plate.
Thank you. I'm sick of pointing out idiotic -- as you put it -- representations of technology in films. For whatever else "Enemy of the State" may have going for it, it is yet another "give me the disc" movie. (The first is, I believe, "Bellman and True" that was made 5 years before "Sneakers.") Having worked in the sound business during the 1970s, I have no problem believing the technology in "The Conversation." "Enemy" is a popcorn flick and requires the usual suspension of sense to enjoy. Nothing wrong with that and I like a lot of those films. "The Conversation" is cut from a different cloth and doesn't require any but the viewer's attention. It's one of my favorite films and I can understand how some people have "issues" with it. But -- if nothing else -- the tech of it is legit.
> I'm surprised you didn't mention such idiotic scenes such as taking > a camera view and then running it through image processing software to > enlarge a single pixel into a 1600x1200 photo, or using that software to > do a 180 degree rotation on the image to show what was behind and out of > view of the camera? I also like how using that same software could provide > a satellite view of a car's license plate.
Thank you. I'm sick of pointing out idiotic -- as you put it -- representations of technology in films. For whatever else "Enemy of the State" may have going for it, it is yet another "give me the disc" movie. (The first is, I believe, "Bellman and True" that was made 5 years before "Sneakers.") Having worked in the sound business during the 1970s, I have no problem believing the technology in "The Conversation." "Enemy" is a popcorn flick and requires the usual suspension of sense to enjoy. Nothing wrong with that and I like a lot of those films. "The Conversation" is cut from a different cloth and doesn't require any but the viewer's attention. It's one of my favorite films and I can understand how some people have "issues" with it. But -- if nothing else -- the tech of it is legit.
My biggest gripe with Conversation other than the slow pace and learning just about nothing about Caul cause he was so introspective was the fact that
Surveillance genius Harry Caul either didn't listen/care or couldn't remember that the guy he talked to at the tech fair told him about the system he was selling developed in Russia where you called a number, didn't talk and the called person thought he had hung up, but in reality the line was still open and could be used as a remote bug. Caul may not have cared about people, but if he truely was supposed to be a surviellance tech head he would be interested in any edge he could get with technology, even if he had to build his own. Now talk about suspension of belief. To belief at the end of the film Caul wouldn't have filed that bit of info away...that's true suspension of belief, IMHO.
--
-- Dennis/Endy9 ~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here. You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon --
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:25:52 +0200, TT <n...@email.org> wrote: >AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:33:42 -0600, Endymion9 <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> After watching The Conversation (1974) and discussing it here, and having so >>> many think that Gene Hackman's character is what Henry Caul would have >>> evolved into, made a point of seeing this one. I give it **** out of five >>> stars.
>>> What I liked about it: >>> I'm not really into action/chase scenes, so not talking about those scenes, >>> but in general the scenes seemed much more..umm lively than in The >>> Conversation. Will Smith is always fun to watch and keeps those scenes >>> interesting. Also liked many of the supporting characters and their >>> personality.
>>> Voight always plays a great villain. Can't remember which big snake movie, >>> Python?, he was in as the villain, but that was the only bright spot of that >>> movie.
>>> Gene Hackman. If I assume this is what became of Caul, in this film I got >>> to know his personality a lot better in a much shorter time.
>>> What I didn't like about it: >>> For some reason from the previews I expected Hackman's character to first >>> make contact with Smith's character over the phone and to be directing him >>> how to elude his followers. Just kept waiting for that scene and realized >>> it wasn't going to happen. Probably my own misperception of the previews.
>> I'm surprised you didn't mention such idiotic scenes such as taking >> a camera view and then running it through image processing software to >> enlarge a single pixel into a 1600x1200 photo, or using that software to >> do a 180 degree rotation on the image to show what was behind and out of >> view of the camera? I also like how using that same software could provide >> a satellite view of a car's license plate.
>It's amazing how cool software they have in Hollywood.
Friggin amazing. Too bad they didn't use that software on the movie, turn the field of vision 180 degrees to see the audience howling with laughter at the stupidity of it all.
On Nov 4, 8:19 pm, "Endymion9" <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote:
Now talk about suspension of belief. To belief at
> the end of the film Caul wouldn't have filed that bit of info away...that's > true suspension of belief, IMHO.
No. What you mean is that you *think* the bug is in the phone. There's a big difference between where it is and where you think it is. The telephone is way too obvious. I *think* it's in the saxophone because that's the only thing that Caul really loved; the only thing he couldn't destroy. The bitch of the invasion isn't in Caul's privacy -- he knows that there really isn't any -- it's that if Caul destroys the instrument he literally has nothing left.
> the end of the film Caul wouldn't have filed that bit of info > away...that's > true suspension of belief, IMHO.
No. What you mean is that you *think* the bug is in the phone. There's a big difference between where it is and where you think it is. The telephone is way too obvious. I *think* it's in the saxophone because that's the only thing that Caul really loved; the only thing he couldn't destroy. The bitch of the invasion isn't in Caul's privacy -- he knows that there really isn't any -- it's that if Caul destroys the instrument he literally has nothing left.
The bug wasn't in the phone. It wasn't in the apartment at all. When the phone was called it became the bug. The film makers couldn't have been more obvious. But Caul never even considered or remembered the conversation. That's the suspension of belief. The character in Enemy of the State, wasn't as obtuse.
--
-- Dennis/Endy9 ~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here. You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon --
On Nov 5, 2:56 am, "Endymion9" <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The bug wasn't in the phone. It wasn't in the apartment at all. When the > phone was called it became the bug. The film makers couldn't have been more > obvious. But Caul never even considered or remembered the conversation. > That's the suspension of belief. The character in Enemy of the State, > wasn't as obtuse.
If you want to insist that's jake with me. Nothing is obvious in the film. In fact, that's one of the points of the film. If you want to think that "Enemy of the State" is a better film, I can't argue with that. I find your reasoning weird but reasoning always follows preference.
> The bug wasn't in the phone. It wasn't in the apartment at all. When the > phone was called it became the bug. The film makers couldn't have been > more > obvious. But Caul never even considered or remembered the conversation. > That's the suspension of belief. The character in Enemy of the State, > wasn't as obtuse.
If you want to insist that's jake with me. Nothing is obvious in the film. In fact, that's one of the points of the film. If you want to think that "Enemy of the State" is a better film, I can't argue with that. I find your reasoning weird but reasoning always follows preference.
And not really meaning to argue with you either. I know there are a lot of fans of The Conversation and have nothing against anyone who enjoyed it more than I did. I wanted more out of it and felt I got more from Hackman's character in EotS.
--
-- Dennis/Endy9 ~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here. You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon --
> Now talk about suspension of belief. To belief at >> the end of the film Caul wouldn't have filed that bit of info >> away...that's >> true suspension of belief, IMHO.
> No. What you mean is that you *think* the bug is in the phone. There's > a big difference between where it is and where you think it is. The > telephone is way too obvious. I *think* it's in the saxophone because > that's the only thing that Caul really loved; the only thing he > couldn't destroy. The bitch of the invasion isn't in Caul's privacy -- > he knows that there really isn't any -- it's that if Caul destroys the > instrument he literally has nothing left.
> The bug wasn't in the phone. It wasn't in the apartment at all. When the > phone was called it became the bug. The film makers couldn't have been > more obvious. But Caul never even considered or remembered the > conversation. That's the suspension of belief. The character in Enemy of > the State, wasn't as obtuse.
> --
> -- > Dennis/Endy9 > ~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of > here. You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon > --
There was no bug. That's where we're disagreeing. The phone became a bug simply by not hanging up. That's why Caul could find nothing. Disassembling the phone showed nothing because the trick was in simply keeping the phone line open when Caul thought he had hung up.
--
-- Dennis/Endy9 ~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here. You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon --
On Nov 4, 4:33 pm, "Endymion9" <endymio...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Overall, I enjoyed this much more than the Conversation and could have > enjoyed an entire 2 hour film about Hackman's character in this film rather > than the one we were given in the Conversation.
Conversation is kinda unique, even for Hackman. Enemy of the State, though, reminds me of an technologically upscale Fugitive. I also like Robert Redford's work when it come to an outsider going up against the system or "bureau". Sorta character fit that Redford doesn't have to deviate from, the energy being largely himself and elements of his brand of seriousness widely ranging opposite Daryl Hannah to probably crescendos, All The President's Men and The Great Gatsby. Not that there's much technology to play off either with Max von Sydow for the consummate muscle behind the antagonist in 3DC. Sitting there all slick, back of the bus -- wearing a monocular in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland, painting Hummels -- too old to be anything but experienced, or actually waiting for the phone to ring in on a contract on Redford.
> And the best thing about it was Jennifer Lopez's big booty. > Voight was OK in that bu the way he screwed up his face and the accent > he used grated my neses too much.
|
