|
Medium Style posted:
That probably comes from the book, where there is a passage detailing his first murder as a college boy (I think he left his girlfriends decapitated head swinging from a rope over a river), which was covered up by his rich and important father. Though skimming through my copy, I naturally cannot find the passage.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 04:22
|
|
|
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 really a bad movie, and the fakeness of everything is clear enough that it wasn't totally disturbing. On the other hand, it's not a good movie and it throws so much poo poo at you, both literally and figuratively, that you can't help but be a little disgusted and annoyed. If you watch it expecting a good movie or a bad movie or a shocking movie you'll probably be disappointed, but if you watch it just from pure curiosity it's ok. I didn't enjoy it and I'm not clamoring to watch it again, but I don't regret watching it, if only so I can say I have. I haven't seen any other Passolini films, but Hawks and Sparrows, The Gospels of St. Matthew and Mamma Roma are probably better bets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 04:34
|
|
|
The Gospel According to St. Matthew is wonderful, and Accatone is very good. Oedipus Rex is pretty dull. I watched a few minutes of The Decameron once and it looked quite retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 07:26
|
|
|
Lots of films reference the oranges=death motif from the Godfather movies. Did the Godfather movies make it up, or did oranges have this sort of significance prior to the films, in some cultures?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 17:10
|
|
|
Toebone posted:Lots of films reference the oranges=death motif from the Godfather movies. Did the Godfather movies make it up, or did oranges have this sort of significance prior to the films, in some cultures? Not that I know of, though I am no expert on the subject to be sure. The few webpages I have found only discuss the usual symbolism of the color orange, as opposed to the fruit, and none of the things the color symbolizes are remotely negative. I remember reading somewhere (and unfortunately don't remember where exactly) that they used oranges in The Godfather because they showed up well in lower levels of light. Someone else might have a more definitive answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 17:26
|
|
|
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. If you only want to see it for the spectacle of some scenes you've heard about, your reactions will range from being bored to grossed out. Toebone posted:Lots of films reference the oranges=death motif from the Godfather movies. Did the Godfather movies make it up, or did oranges have this sort of significance prior to the films, in some cultures? Could this imagery be related to the scene with the oranges in a towel in The Grifters? quote:BOBO Binary Logic fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 26, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 19:09
|
|
Toebone posted:Lots of films reference the oranges=death motif from the Godfather movies. Did the Godfather movies make it up, or did oranges have this sort of significance prior to the films, in some cultures? There's similar motifs in other films. The original Scarface had the appearance of "X" shapes before a character (or characters) got the works. Scorsese lifted this for The Departed (and just as cleverly implemented). Hitchcock and Kubrick usually had important scenes happen in a bathroom. For Kubrick, there's the OD scene in Eyes Wide Shut, the end of the first act in Full Metal Jacket, Ripper's end in Strangelove... Og Oggilby fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jul 26, 2008 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 19:49
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:I watched a few minutes of The Decameron once and it looked quite retarded. It starts out rough, but it gets better. It's better than any of the entries to the Decamerotica genre it spawned. Toebone posted:Lots of films reference the oranges=death motif from the Godfather movies. Did the Godfather movies make it up, or did oranges have this sort of significance prior to the films, in some cultures? It's all an accident. Dean Tavoularis just put oranges in some scenes because he wanted some color in the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2008 23:30
|
|
|
Can anyone pinpoint when/why DVDs started carrying the disclaimer that commentary tracks do not represent the views of the production and distribution companies? I hate that chickenshit disclaimer, and I always wonder why they started putting that in, because I'm certain that it's not there on a ton of my older DVDs. For some reason I think I remember first seeing it on the One Hour Photo DVD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 05:14
|
|
|
Mr. Gone posted:Can anyone pinpoint when/why DVDs started carrying the disclaimer that commentary tracks do not represent the views of the production and distribution companies? I was trying to find an answer to this, when I stumbled upon this, which makes your question seem tame: quote:The worst example of this I saw was the DVD to Scary Movie 3. Not a great movie, but as I was curious of the commentary, I selected commentary. It then prompted a menu stating a legal agreement for me not to sue, and the button to play the commentary was actually- get this- labeled "I Agree." What the hell? When I'm playing a DVD, I don't want to feel like I'm signing a legal document! I immediately ejected it and returned it to Blockbuster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 05:25
|
|
|
Mr. Gone posted:Can anyone pinpoint when/why DVDs started carrying the disclaimer that commentary tracks do not represent the views of the production and distribution companies? Seems to have started in 2001 Can't get the full article but Video Store April 7, 2002 posted:Studios are taking a proactive approach to legally protecting themselves from filmmakers who are perhaps a bit too, uh, talkative. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-85902169.html Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jul 27, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 05:28
|
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:Lord. That's taking it to an even more extreme level. I almost think that's a lovely joke. "Don't sue if the commentary is/makes you retarded!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 05:42
|
|
|
Mr. Gone posted:Can anyone pinpoint when/why DVDs started carrying the disclaimer that commentary tracks do not represent the views of the production and distribution companies? I don't know if there's a specific incident that gave rise to the disclaimers, but I've heard at least a few commentary tracks that could have caused the studio headaches if someone had thin skin. Off the top of my head, Kevin Smith specifically calls out some actors as assholes in his commentaries (like Linda Fiorentino in Dogma).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 06:37
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Off the top of my head, Kevin Smith specifically calls out some actors as assholes in his commentaries (like Linda Fiorentino in Dogma). He also says "gently caress DVD!" on the Chasing Amy commentary, because it was ported over from the laserdisc 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 09:26
|
|
|
Cavenagh posted:That probably comes from the book, where there is a passage detailing his first murder as a college boy (I think he left his girlfriends decapitated head swinging from a rope over a river), which was covered up by his rich and important father. Though skimming through my copy, I naturally cannot find the passage. Yeah, pretty much this. There are also less explicit remarks by characters in the book (like Bethany, his college girlfriend) that imply his lack of accountability for anything because of his rich father. Medium Style posted: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. Patrick's lack of accountability is only suggested once in the movie, by Evelyn, when she remarks that Patrick's father pretty much owns Pierce & Pierce, and that he doesn't have to take his job seriously at all. I could see one interpreting this later as evidence of powerful figures that have a vested interest in covering up Patrick's misdeeds. It makes sense given Mary Harron's intent (that the murders were real), that Patrick's society had become so impersonal and sociopathic that morality, accountability, and the interruption of their lifestyle aren't worth rocking the boat. However, I don't understand how Mary Harron could've intended for the murders to be real given everything else at the end of the movie...it's just so clear that the most logical explanation is that Patrick's insane and could no longer divorce his fantasies from reality. The scene where he cracks up and has a panic attack, calling Jean and then hanging up on her was transplanted from the middle of the book to the end of the movie, prompting Jean to look into his desk and find sketches of dismembered women, doodles of the things he thought he had done, within his polished, leather planner...an obvious suggestion that his violent fantasies are simply inside him. She is the only non-superficial character with a genuine gauge for or interest in his mental state, so I understand why she'd be the only one who cares about his thoughts divorced from action. This is echoed in the final narration, which Pedro De Heredia discussed earlier in this thread, that to Patrick and his friends, inside doesn't matter...all that matters is representation and externally manifested actions. Also, I assumed that the irony at the end of the movie was that despite characters constantly confusing each other for the wrong person, Patrick's lawyer wasn't mistaken when he claimed to have had dinner with Paul Owen in London. I just don't see how Harron could've decided to include these things in the end of the film if her desire was to suggest that the murders happened and weren't the idly sadistic fantasies of a bored rich man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 16:35
|
|
|
Mr. Gone posted:I hate that chickenshit disclaimer, and I always wonder why they started putting that in The commentary track for "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows", for example, is basically the director working through the whole movie explaining how what you're seeing isn't what he intended for you to see, how the producers forced his hand and ruined the movie, and why it's basically a failure as a film. I'm not sure why the studio bothered leaving his commentary on the DVD, but it's there, and I can guess why they'd want to be sure that people understood that he wasn't speaking for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2008 14:30
|
|
|
In Return of the Jedi, in the final fight between Luke and Vader, is there any reason for Vader to fall and clutch the rail right before Luke cuts his hand? It seems like he just moves to that position mid fight, and I always see it. If there is something I am missing I'd love to know because it ruins that scene for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2008 18:27
|
|
|
Gay for Moleman posted:I almost think that's a lovely joke. "Don't sue if the commentary is/makes you retarded!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2008 18:33
|
|
|
Why are some films shot with a green tinge throughout? An obvious example is the Matrix, although the directors have explained the varying colours for the real world and the Matrix, but I've also seen this technique used in Bourne Supremacy and I think it was also used in Black Hawk Down. Everything just has a slightly green element to it. Is this done for any reason particularly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2008 22:34
|
|
|
mikewozere posted:Why are some films shot with a green tinge throughout? An obvious example is the Matrix, although the directors have explained the varying colours for the real world and the Matrix, but I've also seen this technique used in Bourne Supremacy and I think it was also used in Black Hawk Down. Everything just has a slightly green element to it. The color isn't particularly unique, but tinting is a way to influence the viewer. It's usually done for thematic or atmospheric reasons but it can also be representative of some subtext. As an example, various sections of the movie Traffic have rather extreme tints to them to accompany different filming techniques to give the various storylines and locations a unique feel. Specific to your questions, The Matrix does it to evoke the old computer monitor's black and green color scheme to represent the view from inside the computer. The scenes on the Neb don't have the same color tint because the real world isn't artificial. For Black Hawk Down, it's a day for night scheme to give the audience visibility to night-time fighting so that they can follow the action more clearly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2008 22:50
|
|
|
Thanks for the speedy answer. It probably shouldn't get to me, but usually if I notice this in a film I spend the whole time wondering why it was done, rather than appreciating any of the film itself. With regards to the atmospheric effects I suppose it does make scenes seem slightly more gritty and its probably no coincidence that all of the examples are action films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2008 23:56
|
|
mikewozere posted:Why are some films shot with a green tinge throughout? An obvious example is the Matrix, although the directors have explained the varying colours for the real world and the Matrix, but I've also seen this technique used in Bourne Supremacy and I think it was also used in Black Hawk Down. Everything just has a slightly green element to it. If you want to get technical, the look of the Matrix scenes in the first film were color timed the same way as 2-strip Technicolor worked. They simply desaturated the blue color layer (2-strip used only red and green). The first used photochemical grading while the sequels were digitally color timed... which ended up giving more of a green tint rather than an absence of blue. Martin Scorsese used this on The Aviator, too. The color is timed to reflect the period the film takes place... so the 1920s and early 1930s scenes all look like 2-strip Technicolor. This is why Howard's peas look teal. The late 1930s through the 1940s are timed to look like 3-strip Technicolor (vibrant and rich colors - full spectrum). Early 2-strip Technicolor often looks weird, but a few films utilized the limited color spectrum well. Check out Mystery of the Wax Museum some time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2008 00:35
|
|
|
In Predator 2, Danny Glover's character recieves an old flintlock gun with an inscription on it - what was the date on the inscription?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2008 01:28
|
|
|
It was 1715, per IMDb trivia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2008 07:09
|
|
|
The end of French Connection: Ok, so the gunshot was just Hackman shooting and missing the bad guy? He gets away from a remote location swarming with cops, somehow gets on a plane back to France safely, and Gene and his partner get transferred to another dept? Whee... so why the two hours of build up for nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 02:45
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Whee... so why the two hours of build up for nothing?[/spoiler] Because it's gritty and real, mostly. The small fish get caught, Doyle gets in a friendly fire incident while the mastermind gets away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 02:56
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Because it's gritty and real, mostly. The small fish get caught, Doyle gets in a friendly fire incident while the mastermind gets away. Ok, I guess that's all I needed to know. A bit of a bummer, I thought I had missed something big.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 03:11
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Ok, I guess that's all I needed to know. A bit of a bummer, I thought I had missed something big. It seems like you understand what happened pretty well. Doyle had become so obsessed with catching Charnier he killed an innocent man, and let the real genius behind the crime get away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 04:37
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:In Return of the Jedi, in the final fight between Luke and Vader, is there any reason for Vader to fall and clutch the rail right before Luke cuts his hand? It seems like he just moves to that position mid fight, and I always see it. If there is something I am missing I'd love to know because it ruins that scene for me. I need this answered or I won't go on living.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 16:59
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:I need this answered or I won't go on living. He was exhausted from Luke whipping on him and needed to brace himself of fall flat on the ground? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 17:19
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:In Return of the Jedi, in the final fight between Luke and Vader, is there any reason for Vader to fall and clutch the rail right before Luke cuts his hand? It seems like he just moves to that position mid fight, and I always see it. If there is something I am missing I'd love to know because it ruins that scene for me. I always thought it was because after Vader pisses off Luke, he comes out so furiously and really hacking away, that Vader just can't take it and falls down exhausted. On the way down grabbing the rail for support so he isn't completely defenseless. That really worked out great for him :P Watched the clip on Youtube and just before he gets his arm cut off, he dodges to the other side of the bridge, or whatever they're on, and he seems really tired and loses his balance (4:13). He also seems to grab the rail on the other side a few seconds earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 17:23
|
|
|
Ok, it always looked to me like "ok I dodge under, and this is the part where I'm on the rail"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 18:29
|
|
|
Ok I have a good one for all of you. Back when "The Game" came out starring Michael Douglas, there was a piece of software you could install based off the movie. I can't really classify it as a video game, and say it was more of a mini-arg for your home computer. I don't know if it was officially licensed, or if it was an independent project either. Although it came out around the same time so who knows. After I installed it, it brought up a "CRS" (creative recreational services) registration page and asked me for some personal information. After I filled in all the appropriate info, the program states that I'm not qualified and crashes. I think to myself "hey that was a pretty neat little recreation of what they did in the film" and thought nothing more of it. A few days pass and come home to find a new folder on my desktop. Weird. I open it and find another folder, and another. This continues for about ten folders and finally there is a key icon in the last one. I copy and paste it to my desktop. More time passes, I come home to find an e-mail addressed to me from a "secret admirer" who wants to meet me at a Starbucks down the street from my house. (I had forgotten I had listed this as my favorite hang out spot during registration) So I go and wait for near an hour at Starbucks before I realize it was the loving game! I drive home all let down, only to walk into my room and find "Wax Tadpole is addicted to crystal meth", and other assorted messages scrawled all across my monitor. There is a lot more that I am forgetting at the moment, but it has to be one of the coolest loving tie-ins I've ever seen to any movie. The only problem is, is that nobody ever knows what I am talking about whenever I bring it up, and I cannot find any sort of references at all on the internet. I used to have it saved to a floppy disk a long rear end time ago, since lost it, and I would kill to get my hands on it again. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Wax Tadpole fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 02:41
|
|
|
In the film Deliverance, Wikipedia Says: "The reason for Drew's fall is left unclear: Drew was either shot and killed by the surviving mountain man, or he lost his balance and fell from the canoe in the heavy rapids." But when I watched it I interpreted it as Drew being wracked with guilt over letting his friends bury the hillbilly. He seemed despondent, and it looked to me like he killed himself by throwing himself out of the canoe. That would also explain why he didn't put on his life jacket. What are your thoughts? Also was the man that Ed killed at the top of the gorge the deputy's brother that was out hunting or was it the surviving hillbilly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 02:42
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:He was exhausted from Luke whipping on him and needed to brace himself of fall flat on the ground? I was always of the opinion that Vader was "built" for power...like he was so far superior to every opponent that every battle was over quickly, or, better yet, he was so intimidating and so versed in the force, that battles never started to begin with. What he wasn't built for is stamina.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 03:50
|
|
|
Darth Ballz posted:I was always of the opinion that Vader was "built" for power...like he was so far superior to every opponent that every battle was over quickly, or, better yet, he was so intimidating and so versed in the force, that battles never started to begin with. I've always seen it that Luke finally lapsed into the Dark Side and attacked with such ferocious power and technique that Vader was simply overwhelmed. Luke backed Vader into the corridor, and then forced him into a weak defensive position -- Vader had no footing, almost no ground in which to retreat, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 08:20
|
|
|
Tookus posted:In the film Deliverance, I always thought he just stood up and fainted from the stress/shock. Tookus posted:Also was the man that Ed killed at the top of the gorge the deputy's brother that was out hunting or was it the surviving hillbilly? I can't remember.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 15:48
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:Ok, it always looked to me like "ok I dodge under, and this is the part where I'm on the rail" That is probably exactly what it was. I'm sure a better actor than David Prowse could have sold it much better. Especially after seeing Anakin's crazy blade skills in the lovely prequels, watching him go down so easy is even more ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Ishamael posted:That is probably exactly what it was. I'm sure a better actor than David Prowse could have sold it much better. While fighting it isn't prowse IIRC, I think it's in Empire and Jedi they had a fighting stunt double.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2008 21:23
|
|