Movie-A-Day #137: Falling Down

[KingLouieLouie]

You must be registered for see images attach

Well, I'm back doing "Movie A Day" this week by first selecting a film that to me is ideal for how I feel on Mondays about certain people in society in general.....

Thanks to Amazon.com for the following.....

This film, about a downsized engineer (Michael Douglas) who goes ballistic, triggered a media avalanche of stories about middle-class white rage when it was released in 1993. In fact, it's nothing more than a manipulative, violent melodrama about one geek's meltdown. Douglas, complete with pocket protector, nerd glasses, crewcut, and short-sleeved white shirt, gets stuck in traffic one day near downtown L.A. and proceeds to just walk away from his car--and then lose it emotionally. Everyone he encounters rubs him the wrong way--and a fine lot of stereotypes they are, from threatening ghetto punks to rude convenience store owners to a creepy white supremacist--and he reacts violently in every case. As he walks across L.A. (now there's a concept), cutting a bloody swath, he's being tracked by a cop on the verge of retirement (Robert Duvall). He also spends time on the phone with his frightened ex-wife (Barbara Hershey). Though Douglas and Duvall give stellar performances, they can't disguise the fact that, as usual, this is another film from director Joel Schumacher that is about surface and sensation, rather than actual substance. --Marshall Fine --This text refers to the VHS Tape edition.

Personal Note: As I mentioned earlier, this film explemplifies the drastic measures I would even resort to "avenging" on certain segments of society. No, I'm no "homocidal maniac", but some times we are all forced beyond the threshold and could empathize the plight of William Foster's (Michael Douglas) that you're force to drastic measures by all means necessarily to become a renegade (vigilante) in order to contend....In this society, one must be among "the survival of the fittest", but we all encounter some corrupt individuals along the way and this movie allows one to fantasize about taking the necessary action one deems necessary to survive....

Joel Schumacher brilliantly directed this movie, yeah he might have gone to extremes to convey his point, however, one must use some effects to do so..... I heard people say that Michael Douglas wasn't suited for this role, but to me personally he was outstanding. Also, stellar performances turned in by Robert
Duvall, Tuesday Well, and Barbara Hershey....It's a "must see" movie and deserves!

 

[Chaplin]

I'm one of the few people that actually doesn't like this movie, for a few reasons.

1) The director is horrible. Schumaker single-handedly ruined the Batman movies and butchered John Grisham's A Time to Kill. IMO, he is the worst director in Hollywood.

2) This movie is just too mean-spirited. Yes, you feel like him sometimes, but once he crosses over into extremism, you start getting detached from the character. Plus, he really isn't very interesting.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I really like this movie.

Duvall is really good in his role and Douglas is convincing as a guy pushed over the brink.

This is one I've watched several times.

Great choice, KLL.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Chaplin
I'm one of the few people that actually doesn't like this movie, for a few reasons.

1) The director is horrible. Schumaker single-handedly ruined the Batman movies and butchered John Grisham's A Time to Kill. IMO, he is the worst director in Hollywood.

So that's a reason to not like the film?

Originally posted by Chaplin
2) This movie is just too mean-spirited. Yes, you feel like him sometimes, but once he crosses over into extremism, you start getting detached from the character.

I do agree here. Once you find out about the whole "stalking" thing, you start to think the guy is a real bad apple, and it isn't a case of a guy just snapping one day.

Originally posted by Chaplin
Plus, he really isn't very interesting.

I thought that was kind of the point?

He was supposed to be a bland, painfully average guy. People like him, generally aren't that interesting.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain


He was supposed to be a bland, painfully average guy. People like him, generally aren't that interesting.

To an audience, a "normal" guy is someone like yourself. Is D Fens like you, Krang? Probably not. Sure, he goes over the edge, but you never get the feeling that he is aware of what the consequences are.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by Chaplin
and butchered John Grisham's A Time to Kill.

Are we talking about the A Time To Kill with Sam Jackson, Sandra Bullock etc???

I thought that movie was great!

What didnt you like about it?

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Shane H
Are we talking about the A Time To Kill with Sam Jackson, Sandra Bullock etc???

I thought that movie was great!

What didnt you like about it?

There's a surprise.

The direction was terrible, like most Schumaker movies. Matthew MacConahey overacted. Sandra Bullock and especially Ashley Judd were fairly good, but they didn't get a lot of screen time.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Chaplin
To an audience, a "normal" guy is someone like yourself. Is D Fens like you, Krang? Probably not. Sure, he goes over the edge, but you never get the feeling that he is aware of what the consequences are.

I guess not.

 

[CaptTurbo]

Originally posted by Chaplin
I'm one of the few people that actually doesn't like this movie, for a few reasons.

1) The director is horrible. Schumaker single-handedly ruined the Batman movies and butchered John Grisham's A Time to Kill. IMO, he is the worst director in Hollywood.

2) This movie is just too mean-spirited. Yes, you feel like him sometimes, but once he crosses over into extremism, you start getting detached from the character. Plus, he really isn't very interesting.

I thought I was the only person who didnt laugh out loud during this movie. Oh well at least I am still the only person that didnt like Apocolypse now lol

 

[Billythekid]

Joel S redeemed himself enough in my eyes with TigerLand.

 

[KingLouieLouie]

Originally posted by Chaplin
To an audience, a "normal" guy is someone like yourself. Is D Fens like you, Krang? Probably not. Sure, he goes over the edge, but you never get the feeling that he is aware of what the consequences are.

I think though that Schumacher didn't want Foster's character to evolve any further because it would have detracted away from the essence of the movie.....The main focus was to identify more with his plight w/out anyone really getting an emtional attachment to him as person, but more as a symbol of people who would love to have the audacity of what he did.....

 

[AZCB34]

To an audience, a "normal" guy is someone like yourself.

You think Krang is normal??

I think this was a very good movie. What I took for the DFENS character was he was supposed to be bland because he is each one of us. He covers most of the spectrum it seemed to me. Just a guy. I think in somewhat typical fashion, DFENS was almost super-human for such a dorky kind of guy. The sequences against the street thugs and the psycho army supply store were a bit much for a techno-geek like DFENS to get himself out of. But overall, it was a good movie.

I thought the whole Duvall retiring thing distracted from the movie.

 

[KingLouieLouie]

You think Krang is normal??

I think this was a very good movie. What I took for the DFENS character was he was supposed to be bland because he is each one of us. He covers most of the spectrum it seemed to me. Just a guy. I think in somewhat typical fashion, DFENS was almost super-human for such a dorky kind of guy. The sequences against the street thugs and the psycho army supply store were a bit much for a techno-geek like DFENS to get himself out of. But overall, it was a good movie.

I thought the whole Duvall retiring thing distracted from the movie.

You definitely nailed several points in regards to "DFENS", but I must beg to differ on Duvall's character...

Duvall's character gave some balance to "DFENS" because both of their respective characters had domestic issues, how Prendergast (Duvall) and his wife (portrayed by Tuesday Wells) marriage was suffering due to the lost of their only child and how it contrasted with "DFENS" going balistic that he no longer had custody of his daughter. I think for however much DFENSE was "hostile" that Prendergast was too "laid-back"...That it showed the extremes on both ends of how people may cope with loss and the outlets and vices they might resort to....

Sorry if I divulged too many details of this movie, but its one of the most "thought-provoking" films in recent memory.....