What a load of *beep*
I couldnt watch it all at once, pile of *beep* and vomit mixed together eaten by a rhino and shat out again.
share[deleted]
I can, you all have limited tastes in movies!
"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters
MovieChat Forums > Videodrome (1983) Discussion > What a load of *beep*
[deleted]
Love the Nerd reference, jbhatch, and totally agree with you on Videodrome. *gag*
It's AAAAA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!
Sorry to hear that you were brainfried from watching this Croenenberg classic (
if you actually did watch it).
You may now go back to watching your usual classics like the Adam Sandler collection, the latest Pixar films or American pie reunion.
Thanks for stopping by.
^shut up. People like eme456 ruin IMDb message boards. If someone didn't like something they like, they assume the viewer likes crappy mainstream films. I wish people could actually have a discussion without insulting one another. Far out, these guys are immature.
Masterpieces in Film: http://www.imdb.com/list/X6KH2AZjg30/
And opening a discussion with the post:
"I couldnt watch it all at once, pile of *beep* and vomit mixed together eaten by a rhino and shat out again."
isn't?
----------
"Look! - it's the Invisible Man!"
My sentiments exactly, junk-monkey. I fully respect hating a film that I personally like when one is willing to identify what aspects they found unappealing.
Hell, I don't even mind a metaphor if intelligently done. I don't really see vomit/shat as anything more refined than what can be found in an old Adam Sandler movie.
Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!
I've noticed a funny thing that happens, for the most part, on almost every message board; the people who like shallow, heartless movies, can't spell or construct a proper sentence.
Those who do not like interesting, daring films with intelligent subtext, will describe them as *beep* or "vomit" or state "I agree *gag*", and need the film to be explained to them by people who obviously get it, and who can indeed construct a proper sentence.
This is why I am greatly entertained by threads based on poor reviews and negative comments about great films. It reveals just how oblivious people are to their own stupidity. It's like going to a geek show, where the performers truly believe that biting the head off of a chicken is an art form, and that they have class.
And the interesting, intelligent subtext of Videodrome is that watching too much TV can give you a brain tumor, hallucinations and cause morons to say stuff like "television is the retina of the mind's eye." Whatever the fuq that means.
This film is pretty awful, not so much for the special effects, which are kind of cool, especially with the aid of some 420, but for its pretense of being a "message" film.
The real message here is that Canada has never, ever, in its entire existence, made a great film.
It's fantastic to get a reply which only further proves my point. To state that the subtext here is that "Watching too much TV can give you a brain tumor, hallucinations etc..." only goes to show how much you really missed. First of all, this is a horror movie with a message embedded, not an intellectual art film to be dissected every which way, and not a "message film". If you don't get it, you don't get it. That's fine. Stick to horror films that will spoon-feed you everything you need to know, so you don't have to think too much (perhaps just a test pattern, as the "420" seems to be affecting you negatively). Secondly, to imply a movie can possibly be bad due to the special effects, means you must think a movie can be good due to the special effects, so you can stick to Transformers or the aforementioned test pattern (in 3D!), because special effects can only be used effectively as an extension of the story. Thirdly, the comment about Canada "never, ever in it's entire existence" making a great film is not only offensive to Canadians but to fans of film in general (not to mention anyone with half a brain, as Canada is a country, and not a filmmaker). David Cronenberg is Canadian, and he is a filmmaker. He has made Shivers, Scanners, The Brood, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, The Fly, Crash, Naked Lunch, Spider, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, and A Dangerous Method. Then there's Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters), James Cameron (Aliens, Terminator 1&2, The Abyss), Norman Jewison (Moonstruck, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane, In the Heat of the Night), Sarah Polley (Away From Her)...Hard Core Logo, Black Christmas, Ginger Snaps, Whale Music, Barney's Version etc. So that comment alone goes to show how little you really know as far as film goes and how unfit you are to be posting comments. Enjoy your "420".
^ What a terrific reply. Took the words out of my mouth, and reformed them into a better response than I had. Despite the fact that I'm a huge Videodrome fan, and a huge Cronenberg fan in general, I'm always willing to have a good discussion about film. But some of the comments here (the OP's and the one you replied to, in particular), show why it's near impossible to do so on these message boards.
I really do have love to give, I just don't know where to put it
What does grammer and speling mistakes have to do with anything? does it ever occur to people that using the right words and making a real point are not related in any way.
That being said, I liked this movie, and i was only a little stoned. I also understood why some people wouldn't. doesn't mean they're idiots. if you didn't like it though, it is possible you missed the point or message. it is a mind *beep* of a movie.
Well, when it first came out and I watched it stoned, it really went a little too weird for me to understand it. Only when watching it sober later on did I finally get it.
I should take up pot again and watch it stoned one more time.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Just because someone didn't enjoy VideoDrome does NOT automatically make them "intellectualy inferior" to yourself, Travis. It also doesn't mean they would rather watch Adam Sandler or Pixar garbage, either. This movie was just overly ridiculous and off-the-wall, even for the 80's. And ESPECIALLY for being a Cronenberg film! Well, I guess he had to start somewhere. I only gave it a 4 instead of 1 because Blondie was in it, and Wood's acting wasn't too shabby either.
A fascinating idea, but a horrible execution.
Just sayin'...
I completely agree with this comment. But when people begin the discussion like OP did and not put forth any intelligent thought but only seclude themselves in a middle school mindset then yes, they completely deserve the middle school treatment.
From my experience, when someone starts out being immature, most of the time you CAN'T have a rational discussion with them. Don't blame people for being immature towards OP when he was the one who started it. There's no use being mature towards his kind.
To the OP: The Adam Sandler video collection is that way -------->>>>
shareExellent description of the movie.
Couldn't have put it to words any better myself. :)
-------------------------------
Relax! - www.bryanel.com
As someone who really, really loves The Fly and counts it as one of the best movies of all time, I really really wanted to like this. And it's something geared towards my ahem... tastes and demographic.
Some nice moments, but overall crap. It's too unbelievable. Sure you have some unbelievable things in movies, but with for example The Fly, there's a compelling ring of reality to it. This is just obviously nonsense, and it's too bizarre, a really crazy bizarre plot also.
I bet if this were a straight-to-video b-movie release nobody would see it as any good, the people giving this high marks would be the ones laughing at it and making fun of the stupid plot. Crap movie.
I would have to disagree. Although done by the same director, The Fly and Videodrome are two drastically different films. Aside from it being a remake, The Fly was meant to be taken literally, in my opinion. Everything in the film is happening, and you know that. The reason why there is a 'compelling ring of reality to it' is because there is supposed to be, you're supposed to believe it is happening; it has a fully coherent plot, takes no thought to understand (and I'm not bashing The Fly - I love it). I don't think that is the case in Videodrome. Cronenberg puts such a dreamy touch on everything that happens, and yes it blurs the line between what is really happening and what isn't, but that's one of the beautiful things about it. There are certain films you have to suspend your disbelief for, and this is most certainly one of them. Now say, if Cronenberg was trying to make this film completely understood and realistic, and make you believe everything in the film is actually happening in the most literal, then it would probably be considered a failure. But that is not the motive of the film; not trying to sound condescending, just my thoughts.
I really do have love to give, I just don't know where to put it
Videodrome is one of my least favorite films starring an actor I think of as talented, ie James Woods. The films title has also taken on a generic term. Kind of like Xerox has become synonymous with photocopying, as in "can you xerox that", Videodrome has become my generic term for bad pretensious film making, as in "this film was overly Videodromed"
shareI love how you deleted every comment that didn't agree with you. Ha this movie is a horror classic.
share