|
regulargonzalez posted:On the contrary, I think that would add a lot. They want to pass for human, why? Do they desire to emulate humanity, or is it to pass unnoticed for nefarious purposes? If every replicant ever has been clearly marked as such and now there are some that aren't ... scary stuff imo. The replicants are people with emotions and feelings, not 'passing' for anything. Being regarded as 'emulating' human is the sort of attitude that upsets them. They are viewed as villainous because, if I recall, they fought for their freedom instead of being used as effectively slaves. Deckard's big character development takes place when he shoots dead one of the replicants in the street and looks completely horrified at the fact that he has just killed a real person. For contrast, here's the most emblematic scene for me: Deckard sees a beautiful, majestic owl, but has to ask if it is 'real' before he can properly appreciate it.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The replicants are people with emotions and feelings, not 'passing' for anything. Being regarded as 'emulating' human is the sort of attitude that upsets them. They are viewed as villainous because, if I recall, they fought for their freedom instead of being used as effectively slaves. Deckard's big character development takes place when he shoots dead one of the replicants in the street and looks completely horrified at the fact that he has just killed a real person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:To be fair, they murdered people on the space station (or planet? moon?) they were on. We don't get a lot of details about the situation and what details we do get are rather one-sided to their detriment, but we do see Roy murder Tyrell in a pretty brutal fashion. To imply they are heroic rather than villainous is being pretty generous with your interpretation. They're humans who have for their entire life been told they are inhuman. Reacting violently under such circumstances isn't that villainous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Carthag posted:They're humans who have for their entire life been told they are inhuman. Reacting violently under such circumstances isn't that villainous. Yeah it's basically a slave killing his owner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I study both English Lit and Film, so I kind of have it both ways. There are definitely a lot of smart people between the two courses, it's just weird being confronted with the ones who don't actually have any interest in learning about the medium beyond scriptwriting 101, is the action cool or whatever. Especially in the United States and the UK there is a huge gulf between the people who study filmmaking and the people who study film as a medium and art form, and it's not just in terms of the new film school brats whose knowledge of film barely extends beyond the handful of directors they want to emulate or those beelining to work in the mainstream industry; even those who look to the fringes in terms of films and filmmaking tend to cloister themselves off with the idea of film as personal expression and thus looking to context or analysis sullies the work somehow. I could go into all the reasons why this is especially prevalent in the US but I'll just echo the fact that (especially if you're in a small liberal arts college) that lit students might be more receptive to those kinds of conversations. I'm just actually kind of interested in what film courses you're taking if you're running into this attitude all the time. I can understand people being resistant or uninterested in the more esoteric or specialized film theory and criticism, but you're talking about people not understanding basic concepts in aesthetics and narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:e2: vvv one of the major issues I see brought up occasionally that I *don't* have a problem with is if Deckard is a replicant, how come he's so weak? He gets his rear end beat by every replicant he goes up against. Replicants are categorized by their physical and mental abilities. Deckard is obviously a physical class D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Carthag posted:They're humans who have for their entire life been told they are inhuman. Reacting violently under such circumstances isn't that villainous. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think murder except in direct self-defense is wrong. And they're not human. Alive, sentient, I'll give you that. But if just those two qualities define one as human, then intelligent aliens -- say, Spock or ET or Chewbacca -- are humans. If that's the sticking point, then go back to my original post and substitute homo sapien for people / human.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Whatever, it doesn't matter. I used "human" as shorthand for a recognized independent person with needs and rights and duties and privileges. Since humanity is anthropocentric I don't think there's a word that covers Einstein, Chewbacca, Spartacus, & Roy Batty at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
"Person" is generally used to refer to self-conscious, sentient beings that are not necessarily the same species as us. See for instance India calling dolphins "non-human persons".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
It should be noted that human replicants ARE illegal on earth. They are used offworld where they are not illegal and they keep escaping / being smuggled onto earth. So, they literally did pass a law against it, but because there is not one united hegemonic empire, that law does not apply everywhere. On the note of people who are obsessed with "plot holes", these are people who would rather be "smarter" than things by pointing out that they are wrong. These are the kind of people that do not create or enjoy art. People who create and enjoy art like to look for the meaning in things rather than tear them down. People who like to feel good about themselves because they convince themselves that other things are lovely are not as happy or productive as people who like to enrich themselves by learning from other things. It doesn't mean that there aren't bad movies, or that plot holes don't exist, or that you shouldn't criticize bad movies. But when you look at something and the first thing you look for is things that are wrong, you're going to find them and it will hinder the enjoyment that you get from it. Sure you can derive some satisfaction from poking holes in things, but if you get stuck in this mindset, you're not going to get any other kind of enjoyment. If instead, you look first for what's good about something, what you find interesting. If you look for interesting things, you can often find them, just like if you look for flaws. If you don't find much interesting in the movie, then you can start looking for why don't. What is wrong with the movie that makes it not interesting to you? Say you like Gladiator a lot, but you hate Robin Hood, by the same director and starring the same actor. What does Gladiator have that Robin Hood doesn't? It's for this reason that John Woo's Face/Off is one of my favorite movies of all time. Most people completely dismiss it as retarded poo poo because everything about it is so unrealistic and over the top. That's what I love about it, because that film is loaded with symbolism and themes, and yeah, it's heavy-handed as poo poo. There's no subtlety. It is a giant epic good against evil, family values vs absentee parents, law and order vs chaos, career vs home life, life vs death. All of that is crammed into this movie that is mostly bullets and explosions. Many people will disagree with me that these things make Face/Off a good movie, and maybe they're right, but the over-the-top romance of the action make it a real treat for me. There's a dozen lovely Jason Statham and Stephen Seagal (and Nick Cage) movies that do nothing for me, even if they have the same amount of gunfights and explosions and have more realistic plots. If you want to learn to analyze films, Face/Off is like, an easy one. Go watch it. In the movie, there are two characters who switch faces; the hero and villain are both played by both actors (not really a spoiler). There is like, no more straightforward way you could compare your hero and your villain to each other. So you know straight up that the movie is doing this on purpose. So you can look at the scenes where John Travolta interacts with other characters when he's the hero, and compare them to scenes where John Travolta is playing the villain PRETENDING to be the hero. If you haven't see the movie, this is probably just confusing, but the movie is anything but confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
I can see both sides of the argument and for me the internal logic of a film greatly depends on the setting and realism that its set in. As for a question, a few years back I saw a film at my university's film showing that was a 3 hour long period piece set in I think Portugal and Spain. It was pretty drawn out and apart from the drama not much happened. I think the name of the movie had a type of flower in it, and was made recently (after 2000). Does any one know this movie, I wish I remembered more details.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
So I just watched The Searchers. I'd heard coming in that some people think it's racist and some people don't. For most of the film I thought it wasn't as it seemed to be People Being Horrible To Each Other: The Western. Then the ending happened and I don't know what to do with it. It's not that I wanted to see Natalie Wood die at all. It just seemed...weird. Like the movie kept giving me people being terrible and/or dumb and I wasn't prepared for John Wayne's character of all people having a change of heart. But maybe that's the point. I seriously finished it not ten minutes ago so I'm still processing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Snak posted:It's for this reason that John Woo's Face/Off is one of my favorite movies of all time. Most people completely dismiss it as retarded poo poo because everything about it is so unrealistic and over the top. I don't disagree with the larger point of your post but in what loving world is Face/Off not an accepted classic of the genre?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:And they're not human. Alive, sentient, I'll give you that. Perhaps you need to expand your definition of human, or person. Batty's heroic sacrifice after all the horrible poo poo he did to people implies that, while he is obviously in a bad position, he no longer treats humans as inferior, or unimportant, people. For a crucial few minutes, Deckard is a part of Batty's 'family'. In this sense I almost prefer that Deckard could just be a human - because who cares, we're all just people. It's too bad you won't live, gonzales, but then again who does? CharlieFoxtrot posted:even those who look to the fringes in terms of films and filmmaking tend to cloister themselves off with the idea of film as personal expression and thus looking to context or analysis sullies the work somehow. I could go into all the reasons why this is especially prevalent in the US but I'll just echo the fact that (especially if you're in a small liberal arts college) that lit students might be more receptive to those kinds of conversations. I study at Aberystwyth in Wales, which appears to be the place for the kind of people who couldn't be bothered to go down past the first page in the alphabetical list of Universities (I should know). All the core stuff everyone who does film takes have a massive gulf in terms of intellect/interest, but almost all of them unanimously don't like the idea of 'overthinking' films and all seem to be mututally tricking each other into not having any unique thoughts or actually learning anything. I read some of their essays, and they're all about poo poo like 'The Darkness (I'm dead loving serious, darkness was capitalised throughout like an objective concept) of Game of Thrones' or whatever. Barthes, semiotics, visual language and hell 'reading the film' take a backseat to equally barebones feminism/Freud without any nuance. I almost got kicked off the course because I did a bunch of external reading about Lacan and visual language for an essay and the person marking it declared those things 'don't count' as analysis. I have literally learned more about films from watching movies with internet people over Skype and hitting the question mark on SMG's posts than I have on my course (write a book SMG). The English side, ironically, had one film module in the first year that far surpassed this and went directly into the sorts of visual language, artistic vision, and loving hell, sheer literacy that anyone who just did the film studies would be ill-equipped to properly understand. I honestly put it down to the course just not being very good (or maybe I'm just so incredibly retarded that I missed all the nuance, this might all be just me!) along with everyone compromising their own ideas to 'fit in' with everyone else and forming a weird mass of bad, barely-formed opinions. "The good guys were good because the bad guys looked evil", "Citizen Kane is great because it is, I don't know why are you asking". On a production module I got cut off from any real involvement for offering 'improvements' to the script the director wrote in one night. She had already worked on TV at some point in Norway so she decided she was already hot poo poo and other people's ideas or discussion were not important. One of the most depressing moments of my life was being told to shut up, stereotypes are accurate because that's why they exist in the first place. Early on in the first year, we were given a basic intro to cinematography. It was at this moment that everyone on the course was told what Chiaroscuro meant. For the last three years I have heard that description applied near-constantly to films, tv shows, and even a cereal box at one point, because it's the smartest word they ever learned and everyone wants to feel smart. I ended up making one of my experimental films about this idea, and while it got poo poo marks for being an experimental film about something, it accurately predicted the sorts of film everyone else was making. Everything came full-circle when the film the girl I mentioned above made that week was unironically complimented as 'very Chiaroscuro.' Sorry for the words, I guess I have a lot more stuff to unpack about this course than I thought I did. The responses from this thread have been really encouraging and I should probably post in/read CineD more. Now to watch Face/Off. Thanks peeps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I don't disagree with the larger point of your post but in what loving world is Face/Off not an accepted classic of the genre? I'd say I usually get the same response Snak does when I bring up Face/Off. I love it - hell, I like it more than a couple of Woo's canonized Hong Kong classics like the first two A Better Tomorrow movies or Bullet in the Head - but there's definitely a sizable contingent of people who think of it as that wacky stupid Nicolas Cage movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Perhaps you need to expand your definition of human, or person. Batty's heroic sacrifice after all the horrible poo poo he did to people implies that, while he is obviously in a bad position, he no longer treats humans as inferior, or unimportant, people. For a crucial few minutes, Deckard is a part of Batty's 'family'. In this sense I almost prefer that Deckard could just be a human - because who cares, we're all just people. It's too bad you won't live, gonzales, but then again who does? Jesus Mary and Joseph that sounds like a lovely course taught by a fuckwit to fuckwits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:I'd say I usually get the same response Snak does when I bring up Face/Off. I love it - hell, I like it more than a couple of Woo's canonized Hong Kong classics like the first two A Better Tomorrow movies or Bullet in the Head - but there's definitely a sizable contingent of people who think of it as that wacky stupid Nicolas Cage movie. There are a handful of movies I judge solely by the quality of lady that went with me to see it in the theaters. On that account alone, Face/Off was a masterpiece. I couldn't tell you a thing about the movie, though. Smashing nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:I'd say I usually get the same response Snak does when I bring up Face/Off. I love it - hell, I like it more than a couple of Woo's canonized Hong Kong classics like the first two A Better Tomorrow movies or Bullet in the Head - but there's definitely a sizable contingent of people who think of it as that wacky stupid Nicolas Cage movie. I mean cool, like whatever films you want, what's influential isn't necessarily what's good, and all that. But Face/Off's a fun film; A Better Tomorrow is a loving monument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
I just finished Face/Off, and it is a masterpiece. How anyone can dismiss it as 'action trash' is crazy - it's dystopian science fiction. There's a future-prison. There's surgery so perfect it's effectively brain-swapping. Really liked it. My reading of the film really wants to make the statement that the cop and the criminal are effectively portrayed as the same person, AKA the Michael Mann approach, but I'm not sure if I can really morally compare or equate the actions of Archer and Troy. That reading seems a little sophomoric. But regardless there are definitely themes of corruption and some interesting Marx-type stuff. Archer obsesses over catching Troy and ignores that he's a terrorist for hire. The prison is so monstrous in its treatment of prisoners it suspends basic human rights and appears to do shock surgery on its inmates even though I don't think they actually do that to people anymore. Troy with Archer's face actually helps society by cleaning up his own rivals. There's a long shoot-out with cops that are working for Troy - to 'fix the system' by deposing the man in charge he has to kill his own comrades. Really good stuff. Also, explosions. The film also directly makes reference to one of its own 'plot holes' if people took the story as completely literal and serious - the touching scene where Archer proves who he really is with a story about teeth, one of the few things we never see the surgeons talk about making alterations to. It's the film saying "yes, I know, you could just check the dental records, but this isn't the point - the story is about identity, stop worrying about the teeth!" Someone please explain why I'm wrong or give their own interpretation if they disagree. Be my film therapy. Ed: therattle posted:Jesus Mary and Joseph that sounds like a lovely course taught by a fuckwit to fuckwits. I don't like saying it like that because of the obvious irony, and also because it seems a lot like I'm just projecting, but on honest reflection it really is. On the film group's facebook page I made a joke about getting sick of Uni and quitting to make commercials as part of a lead-in to sharing a joke commercial I made for a made-up University in my spare time - and numerous people who I'd never spoken to before emerged from the woodwork to call me a oval office and say good riddance. I got accosted in the street by someone pissed off at me because he thought I was trying to intentionally mislead people into believing a lie to make them feel stupid. Dear God, how many of these stories do I have? I'm not a completely inflammatory person, I swear! Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jan 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I study at Aberystwyth in Wales, which appears to be the place for the kind of people who couldn't be bothered to go down past the first page in the alphabetical list of Universities (I should know). All the core stuff everyone who does film takes have a massive gulf in terms of intellect/interest, but almost all of them unanimously don't like the idea of 'overthinking' films and all seem to be mututally tricking each other into not having any unique thoughts or actually learning anything. I read some of their essays, and they're all about poo poo like 'The Darkness (I'm dead loving serious, darkness was capitalised throughout like an objective concept) of Game of Thrones' or whatever. Barthes, semiotics, visual language and hell 'reading the film' take a backseat to equally barebones feminism/Freud without any nuance. I almost got kicked off the course because I did a bunch of external reading about Lacan and visual language for an essay and the person marking it declared those things 'don't count' as analysis. I have literally learned more about films from watching movies with internet people over Skype and hitting the question mark on SMG's posts than I have on my course (write a book SMG). The English side, ironically, had one film module in the first year that far surpassed this and went directly into the sorts of visual language, artistic vision, and loving hell, sheer literacy that anyone who just did the film studies would be ill-equipped to properly understand. That's such a shame, because a great film course can teach you a lot. I did A-Level film studies and it taught me quite a bit, there was a great segment on editing alone (Hello 'Man with a Movie Camera') but then that's what a good teacher will do. A few people I know went on to do the film course in Newport and the first year was basically echoing everything that we already covered in film studies. Sadly, courses like that attract the type of people who want an easy degree - the Nathan Barley's of this world. Their favourite movie is probably 'Garden State'. I have a friend who says "You're overthinking that" all the time. And honestly it's just over the simplest things. I'm nowhere as near as smart as some of cats who frequent these boards. Some people just take everything at face value and seem sort of blind to symbolism or metaphor of any kind. The best advice if someone wants to make movies is to just make them. Get a digital camera and just go for it. No one gives a gently caress about film courses. My friend works from the BBC and they get DVDs of student movies all the time and they go straight in the bin. No one who's made a student movie knows anything about running a set, dealing with people, none of that. If someone is looking to write about movies then there were probably other courses that are better for that, basically learning how to write is the main thing. Honestly reading the forums here, checking out a few FilmCritHulk essays and seeking out some other writers is probably a better lesson in film criticism than most places will teach you. DrVenkman fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jan 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
SubG posted:I certainly don't dislike Face/Off (1997), but it's not even in the same league as A Better Tomorrow (1986), which is one of the seminal films of the 20th Century. It's just behind Jaws (1975), Star Wars (1977), and Halloween (1978) as one of the defining films of the era. Without A Better Tomorrow you don't have the whole `heroic bloodshed' genre of Hong Kong action films, and without that you don't end up with films like The Matrix (1999) or Pulp Fiction (1994), which in turn more or less define the parameters for 21st Century effects blockbusters and the Sundance aesthetic which dominates `mainstream indy' filmmaking. Hbomberguy posted:I just finished Face/Off, and it is a masterpiece. How anyone can dismiss it as 'action trash' is crazy - it's dystopian science fiction. There's a future-prison. There's surgery so perfect it's effectively brain-swapping. Really liked it. My reading of the film really wants to make the statement that the cop and the criminal are effectively portrayed as the same person, AKA the Michael Mann approach, but I'm not sure if I can really morally compare or equate the actions of Archer and Troy. That reading seems a little sophomoric. You're not totally off. I would say that it's less that the Archer and Troy are the same, as much as they are two sides of the same coin. This is most clear when they are each 'undercover' and they fill in the gaps in each others home lives. Sick as it is, Castor Troy treats Archer's family like people and brings emotions home, where Archer is detached and out of touch. Similarly, Archer is incapable of throwing Troy's family, Sasha, the kid, and even Dietrich aside. Archer despises these people as cop-killing, drug dealing, trash, but he has empathy that Troy lacks and so he treats them better than Troy ever did. In the mexican standoff scene, Sean Archer has become the Castor Troy that Sasha always hoped he was and she sacrifices her self to save him because she loves him. Similarly, while Castor Troy's parenting advice as Sean Archer might be controversial, he actually succeeds at connecting with Sean's daughter better than Sean. Also, while Archer was able to convince the other inmates that he was Castor Troy, the real Troy almost certainly would not have been able to escape, because he wouldn't have been able to be sincere and earn the trust of that one guy. It's funny that you mention dystopian science fiction, because while it clearly is, it was originally much more scifi. The script was set in the future in a scifi setting, but John Woo wanted audiences to be able to related to the characters better and moved it to the present. Things like the prison (and the surgery) are remnants of the earlier setting. Now for my favorite bit of trivia about Face/Off: Castor and Pollux are the names of the gemini twins. The gemini are astrologically opposite of Sagittarius, the archer. Face/Off is about opposites, right down to the names. But it's also about the idea that we can learn from our opposites and that nothing is black and white.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
yeah, but the slash in the name is really stupid
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Cerv posted:yeah, but the slash in the name is really stupid John Woo added the slash to the name so that people wouldn't think the movie was about hockey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
"I want to take his face...slash....off." "You want to take his face.....slash.....off?" "Face....slash...off." Nicholas Cage is the best actor. A lot of times when he's playing Troy (and when he's playing Archer playing Troy, of course) he reminds me of the comedy takes George C. Scott did for Kubrick in Doctor Strangelove. I bet he didn't think most of the faces he pulled would make it in, but there they are. John Woo is famous for working in Hong Kong cinema but knows exactly how to use Nicholas Cage. That's transcendent genius. Shakespeare couldn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
EDIT: wrong thread.
Spatulater bro! fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
SubG posted:I certainly don't dislike Face/Off (1997), but it's not even in the same league as A Better Tomorrow (1986), which is one of the seminal films of the 20th Century. It's just behind Jaws (1975), Star Wars (1977), and Halloween (1978) as one of the defining films of the era. Without A Better Tomorrow you don't have the whole `heroic bloodshed' genre of Hong Kong action films, and without that you don't end up with films like The Matrix (1999) or Pulp Fiction (1994), which in turn more or less define the parameters for 21st Century effects blockbusters and the Sundance aesthetic which dominates `mainstream indy' filmmaking. Yeah, I remember bringing up A Better Tomorrow and you convinced me that, even besides its merits as a keystone action film, it's a great film, but I have a huge soft spot for Face/Off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:'The Darkness (I'm dead loving serious, darkness was capitalised throughout like an objective concept) of Game of Thrones' or whatever. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
At the end of a lot of movie credits, I see the MPAA logo and another logo that looks like a flower with 5 petals. What is that second one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:At the end of a lot of movie credits, I see the MPAA logo and another logo that looks like a flower with 5 petals. What is that second one?  It's them acknowledging the best They Might Be Giants album.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:At the end of a lot of movie credits, I see the MPAA logo and another logo that looks like a flower with 5 petals. What is that second one? It's IATSE, the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, the union which represents most of the below-the-line (i.e., makeup artists, lighting technicians, etc.) personnel on a film crew. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Hi all, I was wondering if anyone here has a copy of the Uncut International Version of the movie Leon: The Professional. I am looking for a quote from the director confirming that the character of Leon is the American cousin of the character 'Victor' from his previous film 'La Femme Nikita'. According to wiki it is written on the inside sleeve of that edition of the film's dvd. I need a photo of that quote/sleeve as a source for an article I am writing and I can't wait for a mail ordered one to arrive. Major thanks to anyone who can help me out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah I have it; I'll edit in the picture in a second
FreshFeesh fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Seems like it's not meant to be taken literally to me. Also, "unsourced DVD liner notes" aren't really great sources. I'm just saying I hope your article's thesis doesn't rest too heavily on this. Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Everything I've heard of the "international cut" just ruins the movie for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:Yeah I have it; I'll edit in the picture in a second Your a lifesaver! Thank you so much!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a poo poo post but this is going to keep me awake at this rate. While relating what the unholy Lovecraftian abomination hidden inside Michelle Bachmann's human shell probably looks like, I suddenly remembered a scene in a movie (or so I think) where a human body is disintegrating to reveal a floating squid thing coming out of it and now it's one of those tip of your tongue things you gotta figure out before it drives you mad. I vividly have the image of someone disintegrating human form-wise and a dead squid alien thing rising out of them but it might have veered visually more spiritually into "woah groovy man our souls are glowy tentacle things" rather than "OH JESUS CHRIST" territory. I thought The Matrix at first but surely not. Then I thought Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within but there's no way I'd remember a single scene from a terrible movie my brilliant ten year old self decided to see for some inexplicable reason given the fact I've never liked Final Fantasy. Then suddenly I was struck by the thought that a man in a similar pose (sorta like the released squid alien is drawing the disintegrating body upward chest first) was featured in The Fountain but then I realized that as crazy as the Future Jackman scenes got I don't think they got so crazy that his final transcendence involved revealing he was a little glowing monster thing deep down in his heart of hearts. Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
The Host with Saoirse Ronan? I saw part of it and the aliens were some weird transparent cuttlefish like things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Sorry if this is a poo poo post but this is going to keep me awake at this rate. Try the Identify This Movie thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
therattle posted:Try the Identify This Movie thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
syscall girl posted:Everything I've heard of the "international cut" just ruins the movie for me. I've seen both more than a few times, can you be specific with your beefs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 15:47
|
|