I may be stupid or slow, but the ending. I don't get it. What happens, why does Columbo have the suture, and how did he find it, someone please explain this fully to me, i beg you.. I may be stupid or slow, but the ending. I don't get it. What happens, why does Columbo have the suture, and how did he find it, someone please explain this fully to me, i beg you.. I may be stupid or slow, but the ending. I don't get it. What happens, why does Columbo have the suture, and how did he find it, someone please explain this fully to me, i beg you.. I may be stupid or slow, but the ending. I don't get it. What happens, why does Columbo have the suture, and how did he find it, someone please explain this fully to me, i beg you..
Reviews
4 Reviews
Psycho
(1998)
Analyze This
12 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have now watched this twice. The First time i was upset, because everyone told me that it sucks and don't bother watching it, and i sorta disagreed after seeing it. Then I realized that this remake was indeed in fact a replica of the original. The music was awesome, Danny Elfman did a fantastic job with the soundtrack. The camera angles were just like the original, and cinematography was a lot like the original too, so i give them that. The negative aspects are, Norman Bates masturbating while seeing Marion changing. I really don't understand why they did that, it made the movie really perverted at that point. I know its called a peep hole or whatever but none the less I thought they should of had Bates just stare threw the hole and thats it. Another problem, Julliane Moore... from the beginning to the end she didn't fit, neither did Viggo Mortenson. Otherwise the characters were picked pretty well. They followed the story well, added a tad to it, for example, Bates actually fought with Sam at the end of the movie unlike the original, Bates literally fell out of his dress and wig. So Kudos to Van Sant for that addition. Hitchcock had a lot of hidden messages in his version and i thought was genius. Gus Van Sant didn't have anything new that i noticed so, not as good. Two things they should not have changed were the original Psycho house, and the Bates Hotel sign. It just looked dumb and not haunted one bit. The shower scene was better in the first i thought, very clever with the famous chocolate syrup by Hitchcock. Van Sant cant top it I'm sorry, color or not the shower scene was just awkward looking. Now the reason it wasn't that great of a movie, the 1960's movie to us looks cheesy at points, also known as Arbagast falling down the stairs and the stab scene. The new one looks way more cheesier because they're trying to replicate the old one. Just awkward i thought with the new one. Over all i thought it was decent but it will never top the old Psycho and no others probably will.
Trapped in Paradise
(1994)
No no no It is GOOD
26 April 2005
This movie is quite funny, you don't have to be a fan of Dana carvey or anything too. It was a good story and has funny plots throughout the movie as well. The guy who reviewed this before is wrong and is a typical this movie sucks that movie sucks critic. Jon Lovitz, Nicholas Cage, and Dana Carvey, are all hilarious in this flick and also just did a great job acting. These were the good Ole days and not the new days where its just stupid fart humor, and no class with the comedy, just sick and gross things. This had cache and goes down as a very funny movie. Go rent or buy it , its cheap and worth the cash spent. Toodles
Saw
(2004)
I see his point, i see her point i see all the damn points
31 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well lets start off with how the movie was....before people analyze anything you watch it for the storyline. Great ending, id have to say i missed points when i saw it was John as Jigsaw, but again i focused on the story. After seeing it one time id say the ending made the movie, 4 of 5 stars, then watching it two times i saw the acting, that Adam guy wasn't too great and also Lawrence, i was laughing at one point on Lawrences acting skills, all the other acting was good though, i give it 3 of 5 stars for acting..now the big hub bub, "i saw johns hand move", "why couldn't he use his shirt", "the phone was easily reachable"...people the director cant fix every single one of the flaws it was his FIRST movie debut and id have to say it was damn good for a 1st one, i see everyones points in the flaws but again wouldn't it suck if Dr. Gordon chained up two shirts instead of cutting his leg off, people wouldn't think its too great of a flick! DUH, the story was the ONLY WAY OUT WAS TO CUT OFF HIS LEG...AKA SAW, and yes I'm sure its called saw because of Jig "saw" but still, they need blood to be shed instead of the use of intellect, hello this was a horror-suspense not McGuyver! So thus all you critics need to stop thinking so hard, and go analyze bond movies LOL
Tell Your Friends