Films watched recently... (CAUTION, SPOILERS)

heatseeker · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:38 am

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't think Children of Men was that good? I mean, the world it was set in was very interesting, but there were some blaring flaws in the storyline (like why the hell they didn't just take the girl to the government) that made it a lot worse than expected.

What noodles said makes sense but I'd also add the fact that the government may take advantage of her pregnancy like other groups may have by using her as a political Icon for their cause. Which they totally wanted to avoid. She's not a circus freak and not a political object she wanted to be respected as she deserved: a human being.

That makes logical sense, but the movie really didn't say anything about the government using her like a political object. Noodles' explanation was kind of implied in the movie (it was never really explained, as far as I remember) and that's just absolutely ridiculous...like they would prioritize immigration over the baby. Look at the scene where the soldiers and the rebels are fighting, the whole thing stops for the baby.

grandbazaar · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:48 am

heatseeker wrote:

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't think Children of Men was that good? I mean, the world it was set in was very interesting, but there were some blaring flaws in the storyline (like why the hell they didn't just take the girl to the government) that made it a lot worse than expected.

What noodles said makes sense but I'd also add the fact that the government may take advantage of her pregnancy like other groups may have by using her as a political Icon for their cause. Which they totally wanted to avoid. She's not a circus freak and not a political object she wanted to be respected as she deserved: a human being.

That makes logical sense, but the movie really didn't say anything about the government using her like a political object. Noodles' explanation was kind of implied in the movie (it was never really explained, as far as I remember) and that's just absolutely ridiculous...like they would prioritize immigration over the baby. Look at the scene where the soldiers and the rebels are fighting, the whole thing stops for the baby.

Pretty much everything in this movie is implied. Paying attention to details pay off and it does require multiple viewings to grasp most of the things going on. The political Icon issue, is implied when the Julianne moore's group rebels against her because they want to use the pregnant woman for their cause. Hence, it shows what the government would most likely do if they brought her in.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:58 am

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't think Children of Men was that good? I mean, the world it was set in was very interesting, but there were some blaring flaws in the storyline (like why the hell they didn't just take the girl to the government) that made it a lot worse than expected.

What noodles said makes sense but I'd also add the fact that the government may take advantage of her pregnancy like other groups may have by using her as a political Icon for their cause. Which they totally wanted to avoid. She's not a circus freak and not a political object she wanted to be respected as she deserved: a human being.

That makes logical sense, but the movie really didn't say anything about the government using her like a political object. Noodles' explanation was kind of implied in the movie (it was never really explained, as far as I remember) and that's just absolutely ridiculous...like they would prioritize immigration over the baby. Look at the scene where the soldiers and the rebels are fighting, the whole thing stops for the baby.

Pretty much everything in this movie is implied. Paying attention to details pay off and it does require multiple viewings to grasp most of the things going on. The political Icon issue, is implied when the Julianne moore's group rebels against her because they want to use the pregnant woman for their cause. Hence, it shows what the government would most likely do if they brought her in.

I suppose...that really just seems to me like that was what the rebel group was doing and doesn't relate to the government at all, but I can see what you're saying.

What were they going to use her for again? I forget...

noodles · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:37 am

heatseeker wrote:

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't think Children of Men was that good? I mean, the world it was set in was very interesting, but there were some blaring flaws in the storyline (like why the hell they didn't just take the girl to the government) that made it a lot worse than expected.

What noodles said makes sense but I'd also add the fact that the government may take advantage of her pregnancy like other groups may have by using her as a political Icon for their cause. Which they totally wanted to avoid. She's not a circus freak and not a political object she wanted to be respected as she deserved: a human being.

That makes logical sense, but the movie really didn't say anything about the government using her like a political object. Noodles' explanation was kind of implied in the movie (it was never really explained, as far as I remember) and that's just absolutely ridiculous...like they would prioritize immigration over the baby. Look at the scene where the soldiers and the rebels are fighting, the whole thing stops for the baby.

I kind of liked how a lot of the political stuff was implicit, rather than the movie just shoving it in youre face.

grandbazaar · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:45 am

heatseeker wrote:

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't think Children of Men was that good? I mean, the world it was set in was very interesting, but there were some blaring flaws in the storyline (like why the hell they didn't just take the girl to the government) that made it a lot worse than expected.

What noodles said makes sense but I'd also add the fact that the government may take advantage of her pregnancy like other groups may have by using her as a political Icon for their cause. Which they totally wanted to avoid. She's not a circus freak and not a political object she wanted to be respected as she deserved: a human being.

That makes logical sense, but the movie really didn't say anything about the government using her like a political object. Noodles' explanation was kind of implied in the movie (it was never really explained, as far as I remember) and that's just absolutely ridiculous...like they would prioritize immigration over the baby. Look at the scene where the soldiers and the rebels are fighting, the whole thing stops for the baby.

Pretty much everything in this movie is implied. Paying attention to details pay off and it does require multiple viewings to grasp most of the things going on. The political Icon issue, is implied when the Julianne moore's group rebels against her because they want to use the pregnant woman for their cause. Hence, it shows what the government would most likely do if they brought her in.

I suppose...that really just seems to me like that was what the rebel group was doing and doesn't relate to the government at all, but I can see what you're saying.

What were they going to use her for again? I forget...

They never really say in detail if I recall, you just have to assume they'd use her for political reasons. I'm gonna have to rewatch it sometime.

grandbazaar · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:47 am

noodles wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

grandbazaar wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't think Children of Men was that good? I mean, the world it was set in was very interesting, but there were some blaring flaws in the storyline (like why the hell they didn't just take the girl to the government) that made it a lot worse than expected.

What noodles said makes sense but I'd also add the fact that the government may take advantage of her pregnancy like other groups may have by using her as a political Icon for their cause. Which they totally wanted to avoid. She's not a circus freak and not a political object she wanted to be respected as she deserved: a human being.

That makes logical sense, but the movie really didn't say anything about the government using her like a political object. Noodles' explanation was kind of implied in the movie (it was never really explained, as far as I remember) and that's just absolutely ridiculous...like they would prioritize immigration over the baby. Look at the scene where the soldiers and the rebels are fighting, the whole thing stops for the baby.

I kind of liked how a lot of the political stuff was implicit, rather than the movie just shoving it in youre face.

yeah it's definitely a welcome change. Usually they would spoon feed us and shove it down our throats.

Ness · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Watched Children of Men last night. It was ok. It was definitely a change, but I couldn't help think of Demolition Man while watching it.

Caligula_K · **Joined:** Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:56 pm **Posts:** 3561

metalNESS wrote:

Watched Children of Men last night. It was ok. It was definitely a change, but I couldn't help think of Demolition Man while watching it.

Wesley Snipes was masterful in that one.

noodles · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:01 am

5th Element - lulz. i think watching this movie when i was like 10 started my attraction to girls with mid length brightly dyed hair

watching gilbert grape - rly good movie, i wanted to cry at the end ^_^

Goat · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:09 am

noodles wrote:

watching gilbert grape - rly good movie, i wanted to cry at the end ^_^

I was secretly hoping Leonardo's character would fall off that thing all the way through... :unsure:

The Black Book - Poor. 2/5

Zeth · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:44 am

Saw the first two episodes of Planet Earth yesterday. This is the most amazing shots I've ever seen on film. Perfection. 100/100. Holy cow.

Astaroth · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:31 pm

Zad wrote:

Astaroth wrote:

maybe it's just me.. but i'm sic and tired of jackass, Dirty Sanchez, the Dudesons and all the other spin-offs... " Look at me!! ha ha, i'm doing something very stupid now!! aaauchh! ah ha haha haaa ha - i just ate cowshit and got beating with a shovel! aha ha.. how cool am I?!?".. yes, we did that in primary school too when we wanted attention

Explains a lot.

grrr... whyyy, you little..?!? :mad:

... My point was that we did stupid stuff too, when we wanted attention. Childish and stupid. The only difference is, we didn't make a living of it as adults.

just u wait.. i will get u some day when u least expect.. on the forum that is... u'll be sorry.. words hurts - and that fact even rhymes

heatseeker · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:43 pm

I saw Condemned...that WWE movie with Stone Cold Steve Austin. If you take it seriously, it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but if you don't, it's tolerable...there are some parts that are just so ridiculous they're unintentionally hilarious.

Legacy Of The Night · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:27 am

Not a movie, but Arrested Development kicks ass. :dio:

Goat · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:34 am

Harsh Times - Christian Bale plays a mean nutter.

Anonymous · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:43 am

metalNESS wrote:

Watched Children of Men last night. It was ok. It was definitely a change, but I couldn't help think of Demolition Man while watching it.

That movie wasted a great premise on a fucking long chase scene. Seriously. A post-apocalyptic premise and all they can come up with is a chase, and some nasty black boobies? Pffft.

Decent movie, though.

Ness · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:59 am

Apoptygmatic wrote:

metalNESS wrote:

Watched Children of Men last night. It was ok. It was definitely a change, but I couldn't help think of Demolition Man while watching it.

That movie wasted a great premise on a fucking long chase scene. Seriously. A post-apocalyptic premise and all they can come up with is a chase, and some nasty black boobies? Pffft.

Decent movie, though.

HAHA!! They were pretty nasty boobs. I was hoping for Julian Moore's saggy boobs before hers. :lol:

Caligula_K · **Joined:** Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:56 pm **Posts:** 3561

Apoptygmatic wrote:

metalNESS wrote:

Watched Children of Men last night. It was ok. It was definitely a change, but I couldn't help think of Demolition Man while watching it.

That movie wasted a great premise on a fucking long chase scene. Seriously. A post-apocalyptic premise and all they can come up with is a chase, and some nasty black boobies? Pffft.

Decent movie, though.

There is a difference between a chase scene and a journey, unless we're going to qualify The Odyssey as one giant chase scene. I'd say the journey is used very effectively in the movie to establish character development and show the fuckedupness of the world.

North From Here · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:44 am

Legacy Of The Night wrote:

Not a movie, but Arrested Development kicks ass. :dio:

Gob-"Come On!" Yes it is. Gob's magician segway-riding ventriloquist character is one of the greatest in tv's history.

noodles · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:36 am

The Libertine - Awesome movie. You definitely need to pay attention to it because the first time I watched it i was kinda distracted and didn't like it at all. johnny depp's speach at the end is pretty epic

Metal Reviews

Films watched recently... (CAUTION, SPOILERS)

Who is online