|
Thanks to those who answered my last batch of questions, and now I have another one, also about different cuts. Mr. Arkadin. I'm a pretty big Welles fan so if I love it I may check out the other versions anyways, just to see examples of how important editing is (like the Love Conquers All version of Brazil). My question is, is there a "definitive" cut that I should watch first? edit: nevermind neutral fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Jul 20, 2008 |
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Hello Pity posted:At the end of 3:10 to Yuma why does Crowe's character shoot his own men? At first I thought it was obvious. But the more I think about it any reason I can come up with doesn't seem to make complete sense. I just wondered if there was an obvious reason I missed or it was supposed to be a little ambiguous I think by the end it was obvious to the gang that he and Christian Bale were friends. So when the gang (a bunch of kiss-asses) shoots his equal he takes revenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 05:58
|
|
|
I've been trying to find out if this movie that I'm thinking of is an actual movie or if I'm just making it up -- It's (if it exists) a horror movie, the scene that I remember is of a man on a gurney, in a tunnel, and then an air-raid siren comes on and that's when everything turns evil/the monsters show up/etc. I haven't been able to find out anything about it by searching for it online, and all of the people that I've asked about it have had no clue. It seems like I'm probably making it up, and it's a hybrid of real movies (Jacob's Ladder/???) but I remember it really vividly and it seems like it's something that I saw. I thought I'd ask here, maybe someone knows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 06:24
|
|
|
Grape The Alex posted:I've been trying to find out if this movie that I'm thinking of is an actual movie or if I'm just making it up -- Jacob's ladder has a man in a gurney in a tunnel and monsters; Silent Hill, based on the video game series that was strongly influenced by Jacob's Ladder, has the air raid siren whenever the monsters come out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 07:06
|
|
|
Hello Pity posted:At the end of 3:10 to Yuma why does Crowe's character shoot his own men? At first I thought it was obvious. But the more I think about it any reason I can come up with doesn't seem to make complete sense. I just wondered if there was an obvious reason I missed or it was supposed to be a little ambiguous Post is a bit old, but I took it that not only had he come to respect the man for flying in the face of death in favor of his family and duty, but I think he considered the impossible task "done" when they got to the train. To not get on the train would be to invalidate all of that man's life and I don't think he wanted to be party to that. Of course, being on the train isn't the end of his life. He can be party to this incredible victory and never be locked away in Yuma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 07:55
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0069 posted:Jacob's ladder has a man in a gurney in a tunnel and monsters; Silent Hill, based on the video game series that was strongly influenced by Jacob's Ladder, has the air raid siren whenever the monsters come out. I probably got the siren from Silent Hill then. It's so weird, though, like I even remember someone talking about the movie on tv, like one of those "SCARIEST MOVIE COUNTDOWN" type shows. I wonder how I got that memory if it never happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 08:31
|
|
|
What the gently caress is the deal with the end of American Psycho? Also, did nobody else notice that The Ringer is basically that one episode of South Park with a stupid love story tacked on? Did they have an excuse for that? The South Park is a lot funnier if only for the fact that it doesn't have loving Johnny Knoxville in it
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 11:22
|
|
|
Grape The Alex posted:I wonder how I got that memory if it never happened. I don't know. Have you been to Vietnam? roffle posted:What the gently caress is the deal with the end of American Psycho? Bateman is completly psychotic and has essentially been living out most of the movie as pure fantasy. As the film progresses, he goes further off the rails running through hallways with a chainsaw and having ATMs request kittens. By the end it kind of comes crashing down as his phone call to the lawyer provides independent corroboration that he hasn't killed Paul Allen after all. There is a case to be made that some of his actions are real but you really can never know. Realistically, since Paul Allen is the trigger, it's likely he's just a whackjob that beats up prostitutes and dreams of killing his peers. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jul 20, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 11:44
|
|
|
Hello Pity posted:At the end of 3:10 to Yuma why does Crowe's character shoot his own men? At first I thought it was obvious. But the more I think about it any reason I can come up with doesn't seem to make complete sense. I just wondered if there was an obvious reason I missed or it was supposed to be a little ambiguous I think the simplest answer is because they pissed him off. He was actually enjoying the whole chase and they had to ruin it by killing Bale after he had won.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 13:54
|
|
|
roffle posted:Also, did nobody else notice that The Ringer is basically that one episode of South Park with a stupid love story tacked on? Did they have an excuse for that? The South Park is a lot funnier if only for the fact that it doesn't have loving Johnny Knoxville in it Though the Johnny Knoxville movie came first, or at least the trailer did (and really that's all one needs for the entire idea of the movie)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 17:17
|
|
|
roffle posted:What the gently caress is the deal with the end of American Psycho? Matt and Trey in the commentary for the episode said they were just similar ideas that happened to made at about the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 23:17
|
|
|
Okay so my friend and I were talking about old obscure movies we watched while growing up and I couldn't for the life of me remember these two actors. They were muscle bound twins, probably Native American and the majority of their movies (they had a bunch) they would ride around in a monster truck type vehicle. These movies were beyond cheesy and were within the same vein as some of Hulk Hogans movies. Somebody surely has seen these movies and know who the actors are?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 01:03
|
|
|
-Atom- posted:Somebody surely has seen these movies and know who the actors are? I suspect you're thinking of the Barbarian Brothers. http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0666795/ http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0666947/
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 01:46
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I suspect you're thinking of the Barbarian Brothers. You're the man, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 04:37
|
|
|
So, for American Psycho-- The popular opinion is that it was entirely fantasy, from beginning to end? My initial impression was that Bateman had indeed committed that series of crimes, for the most part, and they were all covering it up because he was the son of a very important person. Then his lawyer calls him by some completely different name and talks about what a pussy Bateman is, so I also thought maybe instead he was this pussy who imagined doing these killings and whatnot and saw himself as this incredibly macho, sophisticated killer when he was really sort of a passive wimp, and the lawyer simply mistakes him for someone else. I also had some theory that related to the fact that he looked almost identical to some guy but I forgot what it was. I just have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 06:55
|
|
|
roffle posted:So, for American Psycho-- Well, that'd be a new one. The only alternate cohesive theory I've heard put forth is that that Bateman commits the crimes but total apathy keeps him from being caught. Just like prostitutes aren't missed when they're killed, nobody misses 80s execs either. They're so interchangeable that nobody knows when one dies or disappears and they even mistake one of them for another. That theory requires some gymnastics to survive the final act anyway, because of the lawyer phone call and the increasingly surreal experience Patrick has.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 07:10
|
|
|
roffle posted:So, for American Psycho-- He imagined it. This exchange: Bryce: He makes himself out to be a harmless old codger, but inside... inside... Bateman: [voice-over] ..."but inside" doesn't matter. Patrick is admitting to himself, and the audience, that he is not special or unique or different from his co-workers. If his murderous thoughts were actually manifested and he killed people, he would be, but he only has thoughts. He's only a depraved individual in his own head, and that doesn't mean anything to anyone else. At least that's what I thought. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jul 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 07:41
|
|
|
Explain Bill Murray's character in Darjeeling Limited. He was their dad, right? A ghost or a spirit? They were just carrying around his "baggage" with them until the end when they could let it go. What happened to the mother? She bailed on her poor kids TWICE. Explain the end of French Connection. Please, these are driving me crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 19:44
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Explain Bill Murray's character in Darjeeling Limited.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 19:48
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Wait, what? Huh? Admittedly I've only seen The Darjeeling Ltd while inebriated but wasn't his character just completely unrelated and placed there only as a gag? I figured he was in there for a reason. He was running to catch the train along with Adrian Brody at the start of the film and only Adrian made it on board. Adrian smiled and looked back as if to say 'I am leaving him behind' or something. It seemed important. I mean, it showed him again later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 20:34
|
|
|
It was just a Bill Murray cameo. I don't think he was intended to be anyone's dad. It's just funny, to have his character seem important and then leave him behind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 21:21
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It was just a Bill Murray cameo. I don't think he was intended to be anyone's dad. It's just funny, to have his character seem important and then leave him behind. I just thought it was amusing to have an actor who is always in Anderson's films miss the same train that the "new guy" (Adrian Brody) happens to make it onto. A sort of wink from Anderson to his fans that he's slightly changed up his regular stable of actors for that film. I'm with you that we probably weren't supposed to read anything else into that (if we were even supposed to read in what I did). Also -- Murray seems to enjoy making cameos anyway, so it's not surprising when he pops up like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 21:33
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:I figured he was in there for a reason. He was running to catch the train along with Adrian Brody at the start of the film and only Adrian made it on board. Adrian smiled and looked back as if to say 'I am leaving him behind' or something. Well it's definitely for a sense of loss, and Murray played the father figure in Life Aquatic so that way of looking at it makes sense. He was symbolic dad. The point of the ending is they can't truly come back together as a family, but it was the attempt that mattered. The big metaphor is the man-eating tiger. That's what was keeping their mother from seeing them, but they decided to fight it anyways. Then the train they climb on at the end is called the Bengal Tiger. They accepted the struggle as a natural part of the relationship. The parade of people in the dream sequence is like a long list of the people they have to forgive or get over to get on with their lives. Then that scene ends with the tiger too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 21:42
|
|
|
DOH DOUBLE POST
ZenMaster fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jul 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 23:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well it's definitely for a sense of loss, and Murray played the father figure in Life Aquatic so that way of looking at it makes sense. He was symbolic dad. I like this. I can enjoy the film even more now. And Life Aquatic is still his best work. EDIT: Oh, and anyone want to tackle the French Connection ending for me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 23:36
|
|
|
Mad Monk posted:I was 6, it was hands-down the best thing ever. Had all the toys and what-not. Yep, and I remember getting the toys a year before I finally got to see the movie. I missed out the first time around and my grandad took me to a dilapidated theater in downtown Jackson, Tennessee (the old Paramount Theater). 1978. The figures weren't that easy to get when they first came out if I recall. I remember getting r2d2 and c3p0, Obi-Wan, and Luke but I had a bitch of a time getting Leia, Darth and Chewbacca for some reason. I had one of those original vinyl cape Jawas that are worth thousands of dollars now as well (drat if I didn't rip mine's cape off because I thought it was lame and looked nothing like the Jawas in the movie). The first vehicle I had was the landspeeder because it was cheap and fun. Yes, sir, it was a big deal to us 6 year olds with the toys and the store displays showing all the figures and etc... The biggest debate after the first Star Wars movie amongst people I was familiar with (friends, older kids from church, etc...) was whether Darth Vader would be back in the next movie or not. Seems kinda silly now but when you've only seen the movie once you really can't remember if he got that tie under control or went spinning off into space. We didn't have any way to go back and check that I know of, except the Marvel Comics Adaptation but it was off with a few scenes included that weren't in the movie and some things left out if I recall. Then it was a big deal all over again once Empire came out and the debates started over whether Darth was really Luke's father.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 01:01
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:
What specifically don't you understand about it? Seemed pretty straightforward to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 02:18
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:EDIT: Oh, and anyone want to tackle the French Connection ending for me? Yeah, not sure what you're missing. The bad guy gets away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 02:27
|
|
|
Somehow I made it this far without seeing Better Off Dead. I finally saw it last night and loved it. I've seen a good number of 80s teen films but was blown away by how funny it was. Are there any of films that are similar that I may have missed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 04:17
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Somehow I made it this far without seeing Better Off Dead. I finally saw it last night and loved it. I've seen a good number of 80s teen films but was blown away by how funny it was. Are there any of films that are similar that I may have missed? THIS. I saw it on the recommendation of a friend's mom, and it was hilarious. Just enough 80s charm to be cool without being overly cheesy. I don't really have any other similar recommendations, except the obvious Ferris Beuller which I assume you've seen already (since everyone has).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 06:21
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Somehow I made it this far without seeing Better Off Dead. I finally saw it last night and loved it. I've seen a good number of 80s teen films but was blown away by how funny it was. Are there any of films that are similar that I may have missed? Savage Steve Holland also did "One Crazy Summer" with John Cusack, its along the same vein as Better Off Dead. See also "How I got into College"
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 21:39
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I don't know. Have you been to Vietnam? Killed WHO?? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2008 03:01
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the hell was going on in Guy Ritchie's Revolver? Its pretty bleh, not really up to snuff with Snatch and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Andre 3000's acting was terrible but I couldn't really grasp what the hell was going on in the last third of the film. Was everything in Jason Statham's head? Or did he reach some sort of super nirvana allowing him to control the actions of himself and others? What was the point of the super assassin guy's redemption and his saving of Statham's family? This movie was a mess. If there is an active thread about this movie I wouldn't reading it if someone could link me to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2008 11:54
|
|
|
I was hoping the commentary for Revolver would shed some light on things, but it really doesn't. Guy Ritchie says a lot of words that mean nothing at all and then basically says "I want people to interpret it anyway they want." Having said that, a read of the Wikipedia article clears most things up nicely. Doesn't stop it being a bit of a mess of a film, though I can enjoy it on a mostly visual level. And I still think the final scene is brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2008 14:57
|
|
|
3:10 to Yuma stuffApe Agitator posted:Post is a bit old, but I took it that not only had he come to respect the man for flying in the face of death in favor of his family and duty, but I think he considered the impossible task "done" when they got to the train. To not get on the train would be to invalidate all of that man's life and I don't think he wanted to be party to that. I'd forgotten about this one, thanks for the responses. This one is closest to what I thought. However I think it was more to do with The son, than Bale. By getting on the train he shows to the son that Bale gets the job done and isn't a useless cripple.... showing that good guys aren't all losers and hopefully making him start idolizing his father rather than Crowe's psychopath. However, that's just getting on the train. Given that his men seemed fairly loyal to him I'm sure he could have done it without killing them all. I guess the differing responses show there isn't a definitive answer, maybe it's just open to interpretation, which I'm cool with. I just wanted to know I wasn't missing an obvious unanimously accepted reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 16:10
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Somehow I made it this far without seeing Better Off Dead. I finally saw it last night and loved it. I've seen a good number of 80s teen films but was blown away by how funny it was. Are there any of films that are similar that I may have missed? One Crazy Summer has already been mentioned, it's not nearly as good but it's still a lot of fun. If you haven't seen them Say Anything... (Excellent) and The Sure Thing (not as excellent but I always thought it was a little underrated) are two other John Cusack films but they're more straight romantic comedies without the over-the-top surreal stuff. That said Cusack has a similar persona in all these films so there are some similarities. Although it's not a teen comedy you might like Scorsese's often overlooked After Hours. It's not quite as out there but it's got a surreal black comedy feel to it and is from around the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 16:26
|
|
|
Regarding the discussion of American Psycho, IMDB says that "Director Mary Harron (in a Charlie Rose interview) and co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner (in the DVD commentary) have both stated explicitly that the murders were in fact real. They consider it a major failure of the film that viewers are confused by this point." I think Ape Agitator's second theory about American Psycho is the one that was intended. He is an actual murderer, but the world around him is so shallow and wrapped up with conformity that no one notices. They are too concerned with the brand name of the duffel bag to notice the corpse inside of it and too concerned about fitting in to even tell which one of them is dead. It's unbelievable, but it's supposed to be a satirical jab at yuppie culture. I can understand thinking that the murders were all imaginary. I think what throws people off most is the "feed me a stray cat" scene, which is the only thing that can't really be explained with this theory. I suppose Bateman is hallucinating but not to the point where the murders are entirely fabricated. I have no idea where the "cover-up because he's the son of an important person" theory comes from, though. I don't see anything in the movie that hints at this and it's been mentioned on the forums before. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 19:32
|
|
|
On the one hand, I want to see Salo because of it's pretty legendary status, and it seems well regarded. And it's being re-released by Criterion next month, so that helps. But on the other hand it sounds pretty drat disturbing and horrible and I'm not exactly going to enjoy it. Those that have seen it, how did it make you feel? Are you glad to have seen it? Should I see it? I'm a wuss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 21:13
|
|
|
Akuma posted:On the one hand, I want to see Salo because of it's pretty legendary status, and it seems well regarded. And it's being re-released by Criterion next month, so that helps. But on the other hand it sounds pretty drat disturbing and horrible and I'm not exactly going to enjoy it. It's not a necessity to watch. I thought it was interesting up until the circle of poo poo segment, at which point, the movie seems to dropped everything and turned into "we are going to shock you, check out this taboo/gross thing" There are way worse movies out now (a recent one I watched was the Masters Of Horror episode Imprint) and I'd only recommend it if you really feel the need to say "I watched Salo"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Thanks. I wanted to try some Pasolini but don't really know much about his work, so I thought I might start with Salo. I guess I'll give it a miss, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 22:05
|
|