MovieChat Forums > TheGutterMonkey > Replies
TheGutterMonkey's Replies
It always came across to me as one of those cult movies that, over time, just got way too popular for its own good. Back when everyone first watched it, I think people (those who weren't horrified by it, which for some reason they were) were really surprised at how good and clever it was. From the title and the little information given in the trailers, at first glance, it just looked like some sort of mindless fighting movie or something. And while Fincher was already established as a good director at the time, his name wasn't quite what it later became, I don't think, so (aside from some film buffs) most weren't having huge expectations on that front either.
Now that it's become so famous and revered, though, people seem to walk into it almost as if it's obligated to blow them away; and, if it doesn't, they get angry at the fact that it's been built up so much. Even when they don't know anything about it, they figure there must be <i>something</i> special to it, and that kind of thinking really sets the stage for disappointment a lot of the time.
Not to mention, the twist in the film has, since then, been done to death to the point where "maybe they're the same people" has, for years, been the go-to "theory" for every weird movie or show anyone watches. So that probably makes the film come off more predictable than it otherwise used to. Also (largely due to Fight Club) many go in already having been familiarized with Chuck Palahniuk and have expectations due to that, as well.
I dunno. I just think once a film or TV series gets popular, it just loses its magic in a whole variety of ways. It's a bit of a double-edged sword.
With the characters' tendency to put on masks and go destroy public property, promoting anarchy at every turn and telling people what they can or can't publicly talk about, you'd assume it would be a hit with the far left as well. For bonus points, it was written by a homosexual.
I hadn't seen The Lost World or Jurassic Park 3 since I was a kid and, honestly, I seemed to remember my feelings about them (and their reputations) more than the specifics of the films themselves. And my feelings, obviously, weren't good. I remembered Jurassic World being a massive letdown and I'd almost forgotten part 3 entirely. The strongest lingering memory I had about both of them was just what a letdown they were and how much neither I nor anyone else seemed to like them.
After recently rewatching them though, I feel like I was really underappreciating them. Like you say, they're far from perfect, but they were nowhere near as bad as I remembered. And I found them to be quite a lot better than any films in this new trilogy (which came off very formulaic, devoid of character development, tropey, and cartoonishly silly and over-the-top much of the time in a generic blockbuster action movie sorta way).
If other people's feelings are similar to mine when it comes to this, I think a lot of their opinions may just be based on how different our expectations were at the time. Jurassic Park set the bar pretty high for a sequel and, at the time, I think many of us were just expecting too much from them (especially knowing they starred the guys from the original movie). So we didn't really watch them in the context of what they were but, rather, in the context of what they <i>weren't</i>. And that negative view of them just became how we remembered them.
I think for this new trilogy most of us weren't expecting Jurassic Park quality. In fact, we were expecting exactly what we got: an action-packed, dinosaur-filled spectacle that would be fun to watch on a big screen. We weren't expecting depth, we weren't expecting great characters, and since the story mostly wasn't about the original characters or plot, the movie was sorta free from having to live up to that and to be seen as its own thing.
I doubt it would matter either way, considering that even after the first bomb was dropped, and they saw the power firsthand, they were still refusing to surrender.
It's the first season. Most of the things you're complaining about haven't even been established to be faults. They're just mysteries about the company, how the chips work, the lore behind Kier, the story behind Mark's wife, how much do the innie characters ACTUALLY remember, etc., that have yet to be answered.
And why would they be answered in the first season? The slow unraveling of those mysteries is what's keeping it fascinating and what has people chomping at the bit to see what happens next. Have you never seen Dark? BSG? LOST? The Leftovers? Westworld? The OA? Mr. Robot? For most of these, you're given mysteries in the first episodes that persist throughout multiple seasons until you're finally given the resolutions (usually gradually, piece by piece, season by season, as more mysteries are introduced along the way). And audiences absolutely love it. Incidentally, that's what annoyed David Lynch so much about Twin Peaks. He was forced by executives to reveal who killed Laura Palmer too early (which was the big question the rest of the show revolved around). Expectedly, audiences began to tune out after that.
Of course they're not going to tell what the corporation does already, or tell us what's up with the anti-Lumon group, or explain the exact process that led Petey to outie Mark, or shell out too many details about Mark's wife, her "death", or what the company is doing with her. LOST doesn't work if you explain what the island is, what the smoke monster is, what the whispers are, etc. in the first season. The first season was just building up those mysteries, not answering them. And, more importantly, establishing these characters and this world (from their inside-the-box perspective), as we watch them slowly realize that things aren't right and gradually decide to start breaking out of the box, rebelling against the people in control. Which is why that's what the season climaxed with.
I don't think any sort of conspiracy is afoot. People just don't want to be mean, don't want to sound mean, and they want to protect others who they see as victims of this type of meanness.
I'm sure most of us have experienced a micro-version of this in our daily lives. I've had girls complain about getting fat to me before, for instance, and if they <i>are</i> fat, it puts me in a very awkward position. Because I know that I really have only a few options: I can either agree, disagree (lie), or try to artfully get out of this conversation (which is my usual go-to). If I agree, even in the most tactful, delicate, and sympathetic way, chances are as high as her cholesterol that her feelings are going to be hurt. And I <i>really</i> don't want to have that effect on someone. The easier, safer option, is to just say complimentary things like "I like a little meat on the bones", or "You're beautiful just the way you are," or some other such thing that, while it may enable her problem, will make her feel better in the short-term and make me look more caring and sympathetic to others.
We're a social species and an abundance of empathy is a big part of that, so we're usually inclined to bend over backward to nurture and protect those we perceive as vulnerable or underdogs (fat people, in this instance) and to do whatever it takes to make them feel better and to make ourselves look better to others.
That empathy, though, is a double-edged sword. Those impulsive feelings can blind us to what's most rational or effective. Not just with this topic, but with tons of topics. We'd rather coddle our young, for instance, because we want to protect them from outside dangers; even though that very coddling, in the long-term, causes them more problems in the future. People just don't instinctively think this stuff out, I don't believe. The most natural impulse is to prioritize short-term emotional comfort over long-term solutions. So that's the accepted norm.
Well, yeah, with the ending they used it just makes him sound kinda arrogant lol. Like, <i>"yeah, man, I'm a boss; I am legend!"</i>
For the book though, and the alternate ending of the film, it turns out that the creatures weren't the bad guys per se. They were intelligent and part of a community, and Neville was essentially the boogieman that was stalking around while they slept, snatching them up, killing them, and experimenting on them (they were attacking him at the end in order to get back a girl he'd kidnapped). Since he was the only human, he was the freakish creature in this world. He was like a monster in their eyes, or the scary figure talked about in old stories. I.e., a creepy old "legend" like Dracula or something, that parents scare their kids with. So the title was really originally meant to have a meaning more akin to: "I'm the monster".
Apparently, they decided to go with the ending they went with because test audiences weren't very keen on seeing Will Smith as a villain. So, they switched it up so that the creatures stayed the bad guys and Smith became a legendary hero for sacrificing his life to give humanity a cure.
From what I understand, for the sequel they're going to go back to calling the alternate, non-theatrical ending canon. Which is sorta weird.
I was just commenting on the offputting way you presented yourself. I don't have much of an opinion about the specific subject matter you're discussing. For all it matters, he could be claiming that 2+2=12 to your counterargument that it's 4. A correct asshole is still an asshole.
No, no. He's correct. Just as a casual observer here, I, as well, was struck by what an unprovoked asshole you were.
No. That stuff is certainly not "known". We know she <i>said</i> that he was regularly hitting walls and that <i>she</i> said that's how he broke his finger. But that's it.
What she <i>says</i>, though, without corroborating witnesses/evidence, means very little. She has obvious reason to lie and it's already been established that she'll do so when it's convenient for her narrative. We see a couple of photos of holes in the walls, of course, but none are obviously from someone punching them (some appear very tiny, in fact, and there's no info about them other than the fact they exist). We see an x-ray of a time he hurt his finger years prior but, again, there's no corroborating evidence of how he hurt that finger. For all we know, she's the one who hurt it (very Depp/Heard reminiscent, btw). No one else is talking about him behaving like this, though. Daniel isn't mentioning it, his shrink isn't mentioning it, no one is mentioning it other than Sandra — the person who has something to gain from people believing this story.
All we know is that <i>she</i> hit <i>him</i>, that <i>she</i> lied, and that <i>she</i> behaved violently toward him as little as a day before the murder. Also, I suppose, we know she'd been drinking a lot during both of these days and she, apparently, is capable of sudden bursts of rage-filled violence.
As far as her not wanting to go down a road where she put Samuel in a bad light (I'm assuming you meant Samuel), this, again, is just something we have to take her word for. Although, I don't know what relevance this is anyway. What are the things she lied about for his sake? Because it all seemed to be for her own benefit, from what I could tell.
No. They're correct things. What I said was:
<blockquote>This is the same woman who, the day prior, nearly burst a vein in her neck screaming at him and who began physically hitting him during an argument.</blockquote>
She screamed at him. She hit him. These are factual statements. As far as her neck veins go, that's a figure of speech. But if it were possible, I'd happily include a screencap of her vein-bulging throat for the audience to decide my level of exaggeration.
What you're doing is trying to rationalize her screaming and physical abuse. And then you're making excuses for it and presenting your beliefs as facts.
Also, you say "she slapped him, only," even though you don't know that. We heard what sounded like a lot of physical hitting on the recording. We didn't see what she did or didn't do, but she admitted to hitting him at least once and we even hear him scream about how violent she is; and her shout in return that, yes, she's violent. He, meanwhile, isn't accused of doing anything to her in return other than grabbing her wrist (as one tends to do when being attacked). Her story is that, after hitting him, he just started "hitting himself" after. Yeah,well, we have no evidence other than her word on that. All we know for sure is that she hit him.
I find it debatable to refer to her behavior during the earlier part of that argument as "calm and collected". Personally, I found it to be a lot of gaslighting, passive aggression, and victim blaming. It's about as "calm and collected" as your spouse bringing up you cheating on them and you "calmly" dismissing them with "Oh, boo-hoo. Here, have some wine and forget it." Calm? Sure, technically, I guess. But only <i>technically</i>.
In either case, again, she shouted like a nut and hit him a couple of minutes after. Which sorta negates her "calm and collectedness". Also, I found the statement (and her agreement) about her violence interesting as neither of them acted as if this was new behavior from her.
I thought the Oliver Stone film was a bit too all over the place and weirdly focused on a gay angle. So I was excited about this new portrayal. But just 9 minutes in and we're already seeing Alexander snuggling up with Hephaestion, holding hands with him, having romantic makeout sessions on the beach, caressing each other's ripped bodies, etc. Clearly, yet again, it's another cringe excuse to paint him as a gay icon.
All we know about those two, really, was that they were close friends and Alexander was extremely sad when the guy died. While gay acts MAY have been a norm during these times (debatable), there's no evidence it was a norm in the way they keep portraying it; like some LGBTQ+ utopia or something, where lubby-dubby gay couples were accepted and everywhere. It was just occasional pederasty, where the sub was usually a young boy/man (who probably reminded them of girls in a society where girls were kept constantly away); not their military generals and equals. And penetration was frowned upon. Almost like in prison (assuming most prison b*tches were underage), you were only looked down on if you were the sub. If anything, it was more of a pedo utopia than a gay one.
That aside, even if it were this paradise for gay love, there's little to suggest Alexander was "gay" himself. We know he had sex with women, we know he married several women, we know he had a child with a woman, and we know that he mentioned being attracted to women.
The evidence he was gay/bi? Well, he was sad that his childhood friend who he loved died and he made a big deal out of it (people jump to conclusions about Achilles and Patroclus for similar reasons). Also, it was once noted in one fragmented quote from an ancient historian that Alexander was "excessively keen on boys" and he was once (allegedly) goaded into kissing a Persian eunuch named Bagoas. That's pretty much it that I can recall. And, from this, it's somehow been concluded that he was basically Lance Bass with a military.
While I'm uncertain if there even is a right answer or not, if there is, I'm more inclined to believe she did it.
One of the biggest reasons is due simply to the fact that her story seemed unrealistic, imo. She says that after Samuel ruined her interview by blaring P.I.M.P. (presumably in reference to Sandra acting like a pimp by cheating on him so much), her reaction was simply to head to her bedroom for a while. Then Samuel eventually pops in and they briefly have a casual conversation about nothing in particular. Then he goes back to working and listening to music and she starts doing some work in her bedroom for another 10 min before she plops in some earplugs and takes a nap. Then she's woken up an hour later by her son screaming.
It seems unlikely, to me, that there wasn't a fight that erupted directly after her husband embarrassed her and ruined her interview like he did. This is the same woman who, the day prior, nearly burst a vein in her neck screaming at him and who began physically hitting him during an argument. But she didn't say a word to him about THIS humiliation? And why would he keep playing it so loudly even after the interviewer left? And KEEP playing it throughout their casual conversation together? Then keep playing it for at least another 10 minutes while continuing to work on the house? For fun? I doubt even 50 Cent could tolerate the song on loop for that long. Granted, of course, I guess this could be argued as what drove him to suicide.
Add onto this her having lied about the wounds on her arm to both the police and her lawyer; her failing to mention their prior argument until a recording of it was unearthed; and the fact that right after the lawyer implies to her that a suicide is their best alternative explanation to his death, Sandra conveniently remembers an attempted suicide that literally no one else (including Samuel's shrink) has ever heard hair of before.
Oh, well. Since you put it that way...
Seems pretty realistic to me, a black person making such a statement in America today. In fact, the statement could be seen as yet another example of the irrational, divisive paranoia pushed on the public (i.e., that they shouldn't trust white people). In the context of the film, that would actually make a lot more sense, as it showed no evidence of that bit of dialogue being justified as a valid statement, let alone that there was some overarching "anti-white" message. No more so than Julia Roberts character being paranoid about a mysterious couple of black people showing up at her vacation house was an anti-black message. It was just something that particularly paranoid and antagonistic characters said. Just as they'd possibly say in real life.
I mean, I'm very against the onslaught of wokeness on TV, but it's gotten to the point where people's woke-detectors have become set on max settings, detecting even the slightest word or bit of diversity as something to sound alarm bells over and scream on YouTube about. It's the exact other side of the coin to all of those woke people who misconstrue every other word as being racist or so-and-so-phobic.
Honestly, claiming stuff like this is "woke" is not only untrue, but it gives ammunition to the people who like to pretend that actual woke content isn't woke, "it's just paranoid right-wing snowflakes who like to call everything woke".
Whether they did <i>anything</i> to the face, who's to say. But as far as how it was destroyed (i.e., the missing nose), there were sketches of the Sphinx's messed up face from well before Napoleon was even born.
Yes. It's a pretty classic example of the trolley problem, where you're saving many lives by directly taking the lives of a fewer number of people.
In past ground invasions, such as in the Battle of Okinawa, over 200 thousand people died, mostly Japanese soldiers and civilians. The ground invasion that was to come on the Japanese home islands (Operation Downfall) was estimated to massively exceed all of this, with between 250-thousand to 1 million American lives expected to be lost and several million Japanese lives lost. Even the low estimates of deaths were far more than what was lost due to the dropping of the atomic bombs (somewhere around 129,000 and 226,000).
As far as the Japanese being "done" and ready to surrender, that's a topic of a lot of debate. However, just 11 days before the bombs were dropped the Allies warned the Japanese (the Potsdam Declaration) that if they didn't unconditionally surrender they would face "prompt and utter destruction" and Japan refused to go along with it. Thus, the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. After this, Japan <i>still</i> refused unconditional surrender. So, three days after that, the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Almost a week after <i>that</i> (and the Soviet Union declaring war on them) they finally gave up.
That's always kind of bothered me, as well. Not the race thing, because I didn't know about it (if I had, that would have bothered me too, though, to some extent) but Stahl's small size. It actually bothered me before I even saw the real Bobby Kent or knew anything about the true life story behind all of this. I remember watching this even as a kid (yes, I was watching this as a kid lol) and being so confused about why anyone would be afraid of this guy or sit back as he hurt them. It looked like every other guy in this movie could take this guy, for Pete's sake.
I mean, I still loved the movie and thought Stahl, in particular, was great in it. But that aspect of the movie always did seem very weird to me. And when I finally saw the actual person and how big he was it made the events in the movie make a lot more sense to me. But it made the casting choice make even <i>less</i> sense.
Likewise, although to a much lesser extent, when I saw the real Lisa, and that she was kind of fat and unattractive, it made more sense to me than how she was shown in the movie. I remember one scene, in particular, where Bobby makes fun of her weight and just thinking, "Wtf is this guy talking about?" because she didn't appear even slightly heavy.
The rest of the casting, while they didn't look like the characters, doesn't bother me so much. But these two do due to the sheer fact that their appearance actually factors into the plot.
It's pretty original in a way. Unlike Home Alone, any of the Christmas Carol stories, Rudolph, The Santa Clause, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Elf, Bad Santa, The Grinch, Black Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street, It's a Wonderful Life, and all of the other staples of the Christmas movie genre, Christmas Vacation, as silly as it gets, is a fairly simple, grounded-in-reality (albeit exaggerated) holiday story that I think many people can relate to on a personal level. It hits close to home with the tangled lights, the quirky (and sometimes embarrassing) family piling in, Christmas dinner, decorating, picking out Christmas trees, shopping, the overwhelming stress of all of this, and so many little, seemingly mundane things that perfectly define what Christmas is for a lot of us. The only other movie that comes to mind that also does this extremely well is A Christmas Story, which is equally beloved (for similar reasons, I'd wager).
And for both of these movies, as someone else mentioned, they manage to accomplish this in a fun and funny way that doesn't come across as overly fluffy, kiddy, gimmicky, or nauseatingly sentimental. It's just a good movie that would be entertaining to watch even if it wasn't Christmas.
That being said, a lot of us who feel so strongly about the movie didn't dive into it expecting it to be the ultimate Christmas movie or some amazing piece of cinema. If we had, no doubt we'd probably have been let down, as well. But that's true for most "classics", honestly.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but even with hearing so many talking about this movie ahead of time, when I, personally, went into it, I had no idea that it was going to be pushing such a heavy-handed message about "toxic masculinity" and how women are victims of a patriarchy. So, from my perspective, I just figured the success was mostly due to a combination of good advertising and popular actors. And, of course, the lucky happenstance of having this "Barbenheimer" thing go viral. If it weren't for this latter bit, I doubt the film would have been nearly as popular as it was.
That being said, even if the "message" of the film itself was at play, I don't think it would be signifying how much women hate men. People will just hop on whatever bandwagon is trending in front of them at the time for a chance at activism. Doesn't matter what it is, really. In this instance, the oppressed was women and the oppressors were men. Later the oppressed became Palestine and the oppressors Israel. Before that, the oppressed were black and the oppressors were white. In the 90s, they became obsessed with things like the story of the West Memphis Three, where the oppressed were misunderstood goth kids and the oppressors were the religious normies. And so on and so forth, all the way back to the alluring tales of the innocent Christians and barbarians being victims of the mean old Romans. I think people just naturally love that narrative structure and having any opportunity to signal that they're standing up for an underdog.