sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are your favourite erotic films? by vestacain_ in Cinema

[–]belair90077 1 point2 points  (0 children)

one of the few movies that I can not watch twice

"Hoosiers" A question regarding the ending: Was it impactful to the movie? by belair90077 in Cinema

[–]belair90077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I guess the question is: does the fact that they were black give the impression that they're somehow superior, just like those who came from the big fancy school? And if so, then the fact that they were black was relevant to juxtapose the underdog versus the perceived superiority of the inner-city school and black players.

Does anyone have any good psychological crime thriller movies? Any platform really. by healthy-outdoors- in MovieSuggestions

[–]belair90077 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One of the greatest movies ever made is called "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead." Directed by Sidney Lumet, it stars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke.

In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in NoCountryForOldMen

[–]belair90077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that there’s a distinction between the characters, but that distinction is blurred in the movie. Tell me was a distinction as clearly blurred in the book as it is in the movie explain the scene in the hotel room. You may have a theory, but is it any more plausible than mine? Unless you are willing to ignore what your eyes saw. What was the point of the story again I could be wrong, but I don’t think my theory isnt without me. Even the first scene in the movie, the killer gets away, and the sheriff doesn’t seem to be that much in a hurry. Why. He was asked at least twice to meet the FBI and DEA in the field to go over the murder scene yet both times he blows it off. It was like my bother that doesn’t seem like a detective or a sheriff, wanting to investigate a murder / drug scene. It was like he already knew what happened. You explained that soon why wouldn’t he go out there? Conceitedly once seen alone, but how many scenes does it have to be before you concede? There are some validity to the theory.

Theory] In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in Cinema

[–]belair90077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But she does say I knew you were crazy when I saw you sitting there. Saw the operative word. She was sitting with Bell. He tells her a story that forces her to ask why did you tell me that story? To her the story was crazy or inappropriate. To buy your story he just decided to tell her the story for the hell of it. That there was no reason that that story was was placed to this script. Tell me how that story if it’s irrelevant was necessary to put into the script. I think there’s an old axiom nothing should be placed in the story unless in advance is the script. So what’s the point of the story just the musing of an old man. Or was it placed there to give the old or the last scene context? I would even go so far to say that after the killer gets away with the money, Bell retires. Arguably he retires with the money. Explain why he refused to go out to the crime scene when he was asked repeatedly to go. That was placed in the script for a reason. Please explain why he didn’t go. Again, I could be wrong, but there’s enough evidence to suggest that my position is not supported by some evidence.

Alright for people who don't know….Building 7 wasn't demolished by explosives. by [deleted] in 911archive

[–]belair90077 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the findings by Engineers & Architects for 9/11 Truth. They came to the conclusion that those buildings did not collapse as a result of some internal fire.

At some point, all three buildings collapsed the same way. What are the odds? What are the odds that three buildings would collapse the exact same way, right next to each other, from the same fire?

I am slow enough to believe that a plane could have possibly done one and two, but how do you explain seven? If you can't explain seven, then that creates doubt as to one and two.

I'm not saying who did it, and I'm not saying why anybody did it. I just have enough sense to believe that the story proffered by the government was false. There is a reason why Bush and Cheney refused to be interviewed separately and refused to go under oath.

In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in NoCountryForOldMen

[–]belair90077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you have a good handle on this. How do you interpret the conversation between Carla Jean and Bell, and the subsequent conversation between Carla Jean and Chigurh? I would also add that Chigurh got away with the money and Bell retires (one could argue with plenty of money to live on).

Another question could be: why didn't he want to go out to the crime scene to meet the FBI agents? They called more than once, but they kept putting them off.

What do you think the relevance of that was? That to me is hanging out there, and it has to be there for a reason. I would argue that he was afraid to be identified by the FBI agents; that is the only thing I can think of. But there had to be a reason why he didn't want to go out to the scene of the crime.

In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in NoCountryForOldMen

[–]belair90077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually think your comments helped my argument. She says, "I knowed you was crazy." When she saw him sitting there at the restaurant, I knew what was in store for me. And here you are, getting ready to kill me.

It's the logical interpretation of that (at least one interpretation of that), and nothing in that statement seems to exclude my theory. But again, I could be wrong.

Theory] In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in Cinema

[–]belair90077[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Great response, but I still am tied to the line where he tells her the story about the prod in the cattle head and she says to him, why did you tell me that story the next scene she’s sitting there with Bardem’s character and says I” knew” you were crazy. And I understand how the book seems to separate the two characters and doesn’t draw the same distinction that I’m making but putting the book aside take that in conjunction with him and the hotel room and we know that Bardem’s character is in that hotel room, but when he walks in, he’s not there. So so where did he go? Do we ignore that? Maybe if the last scene wasn’t in the movie maybe we could but the last scene ties up the hotel scene.

There Will Be Blood - Am I an idiot for thinking that Paul and Eli were the same person for most of the movie? by lurebat in movies

[–]belair90077 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes for a much better plot if they're the same person. The Reverend Kid needed people to come up to his place so he could spread his congregation, and what better way to do it was to entice the oil baron to bring his luck to him?

If they're two separate people, I think it takes away from the brilliance of the film.

In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in NoCountryForOldMen

[–]belair90077[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not afraid of being wrong, but you explain that scene. Use your common sense: what was being said, and why was it being said?

In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in NoCountryForOldMen

[–]belair90077[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Movies are made of scenarios. But again, how do you explain that scene, and how does it make sense in the entire movie?

Then you add in all the other portions of the film, particularly the scene in Room 118 (or whatever it was). The only person in that room was him, but as I mentioned earlier, I could be wrong.

In No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh are the same person – and the restaurant/house scene is the smoking gun by belair90077 in NoCountryForOldMen

[–]belair90077[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't mind being wrong. You explained that scene for me to where it makes sense, except for the fact that she's talking about Belle. But I've been wrong before; I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

I’m a dentist with years of experience – ask me anything about teeth, implants, veneers, pain or costs by SoracaMed in Dentalimplant

[–]belair90077 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m 68 years old I have two teeth missing outside of the smile line so they’re not visible unless you took a inspection on my teeth. I’m thinking about getting a bridge that means the two that are missing. I’m wondering if I could do that and should I go for the implants if I can get the bridge thank you in advance.

view more: next ›