Conference bookie::movies

    To my opinion it was a good suspense thriller, but nothing extraordinary.
    Good acting by Connery and Fishburne. A lot of surprises and unexpected
    twists. Maybe a little bit too much of it and therefore not very
    believable.
    But overall I would recommend it. 
    A.

    I'm surprised there's not more discussion on this one. I saw it the
    other night and give it thumbs up. Sean Connery was superb as was Ed
    Harris as the Hannibal type character on death row.
    
    A good thriller. Well worth the rental.
    
    Royston

    Okay, if you want more discussion, here it is.  I thought it was one of
    the stupidest movies I ever saw.  Sean "It's OK to Slap a Woman"
    Connery was the executive producer, which explains why he was in every
    single scene.  The dialog was mindbogglingly unrealistic.  
    
    Ed Harris was really good, but the notion that a megalomaniac killer
    such as himself would be willing (and organized enough) to share the
    "glory" of his murders with someone else, especially a black man (this 
    did take place in the South), is totally unrealistic.  As unrealistic
    as the black guy coming back to wreak vengeance on the white female
    lawyer for "making" him lose his scholarship (and she didn't recognize
    him?).  Hell, you can gang rape a white woman on campus and not lose your 
    scholarship, and this guy committed a misdemeanor (if memory serves me 
    right, he didn't even do it) that any decent lawyer could have gotten him 
    off of.  Even if she did, it was unrealistic of her to try to make
    good.
    
    It's too bad, because I do like Sean Connery as an actor, but the last
    3 movies I've seen him in really sucked. 
    
    Sorry to disagree with you guys, but this is a discussion group, right?  

>                      <<< Note 780.3 by PCBUOA::BELLOWS >>>

reading your review makes me think you did not pay attention to the movie...

possible spoliers follow...



>    Sean "It's OK to Slap a Woman"
>    Connery was the executive producer, which explains why he was in every
>    single scene.  The dialog was mindbogglingly unrealistic.  

Do you hold a grudge against him for that quote, which was taken totally
out of context... (in fact, I don't think he said those exact words, it was
something similar, but different...)

Anyways - Connery wasn't in every scene... (for instance, the opening scene)
    
>    Ed Harris was really good, but the notion that a megalomaniac killer
>    such as himself would be willing (and organized enough) to share the
>    "glory" of his murders with someone else, especially a black man (this 
>    did take place in the South), is totally unrealistic.  As unrealistic

but he didn't share anything with the black man...

>    as the black guy coming back to wreak vengeance on the white female
>    lawyer for "making" him lose his scholarship (and she didn't recognize
>    him?).  Hell, you can gang rape a white woman on campus and not lose your 

the black guy WAS the killer of the girl. He arranged with the Harris 
character to make it look like Harris killed the girl - thus giving Harris
his death sentence he wanted plus the black guy (can't think of his name)
promised to kill Harris's parents... 

She did know who he was - she was the prosecuting DA for the case in 
question - where the black guy was beat up so bad that he was castrated(sp?).
He was out for revenge because of that, not his lost scholarship...

>    scholarship, and this guy committed a misdemeanor (if memory serves me 
>    right, he didn't even do it) that any decent lawyer could have gotten him 
>    off of.  Even if she did, it was unrealistic of her to try to make
>    good.

After he was beat up, she dropped the case because it was found the arresting
officier was the woman's ex-boyfriend... so she felt guilty about what
happened to him (castrated).

I liked this movie overall - it did have some weak moments, but it's not
as bad as you make it out to be (in fact, it sounds like you just didn't
understand parts of the film). Overall, I'd give it a B... (or for those
who like star ratings, ***)

>    It's too bad, because I do like Sean Connery as an actor, but the last
>    3 movies I've seen him in really sucked. 
    
what were the others??? I thought Rising Sun was good... First Knight does
look weak, however.

/scott

    First of all, guys, lighten up.
    
    Secondly, I saw the film two years ago and 500+ films later it's a
    little foggy, especially the details.  So it's not that I didn't
    understand "parts," they're just foggy.  My most profound memory of the
    film was that I should have walked out after the first 10 minutes and
    didn't.  The same feeling I had in First Knight.  The same feeling I
    had in A Good Man in Africa.
    
    Perhaps I just shouldn't see those kinds of films.  I read so much true
    crime that it's hard for me to take these films seriously; they're just
    so unrealistic.  I used to be a very serious student of Arturian lore,
    legend, and history, so First Knight was a total waste.  A Good Man in 
    Africa was just plain boring.
    
    Thirdly, if you guys can't handle someone else's opinion (ahem,
    opinion) when it differs from yours, you shouldn't be in this notes
    group.
    
    b2

>    First of all, guys, lighten up.

I wasn't trying to flame you, in case you took my note that way...
    
>    Secondly, I saw the film two years ago and 500+ films later it's a

didn't this movie come out last x-mas???

/scott

    I thought it was last summer or the summer before.  Basically, if it
    was before yesterday it may as well have been two years ago.  Yes, the
    mind is fading fast.  
    
    PS -- not to change the subject, but have you seen The Tenant?

	just saw it last week.	i thought it was a decent flick.  harris
	was good.  storyline was riveting enough, regardless of how
	unrealistic.

Rented it for a quick viewing over the weekend.
It wasn't on my "really hope to see" list, but I picked it up in case I got
time to watch.

Spoiler time....
The interesting thing about the movie was that despite the twists and lies,
they made no effort to smotth out the results of the twists and lies.
When we found out that Bobbie Earl DID do it, there was no "rewinding"
of the story to expose his lies point-for-point.

Did, in fact, the cops beat the confession out of him with Russian Roulette?

We only ever did see Bobbie Earl's side of the story, and when we found
that his story wasn't true, we might feel disappointed that the story
wasn't set straight.  I don't think this is a flaw, I think that was 
deliberate in the part of the filmmakers to let us mislead ourselves
and think more about the movie.

We know how Blair (Harris) knew when Armstrong (Connery) was lying.

Armstrong's wife knew Bobbie Earl was the guy she prosecuted,
but the twist in her case came the first day when the cop was found to have
known the girl in question - Mrs. Armstrong had the case held over and found 
nothing, and that's the overnight when Bobbie Earl was beaten and castrated.
And I don't think she knew he'd been castrated, just beaten really really
badly, badly enough to spend time in the hospital.

And was he mad because of losing the scholarship, or did he "give up" the
scholarship (perhaps semi-purposefully) because of the other things that 
happened?

The whole movie comes down to the point in the swamp shack when Armstrong says
"Let them go, you've got me" and Bobbie Earl says "but it's not you I want, 
is it (whatever her name was)?"

Actually not bad overall, nice twists, but you gotta expect them when 
he gets released with 40 minutes left in the movie.

- tom]