Couldnt stand the supposed "bad guys" in this film.
Martin and his crew were scum, and I felt nothing for any of them.
I was actually a little p!ssed at the end when Martin escaped.
Just me, but then I hate it when the bad guys get away
I dont necessarily mind if the bad guys get away, but I wasnt really feeling "Flesh & Blood" either.
I'm especially baffled by everyone who raves about how historically accurate it is. I guess at the time when it came out it was refreshing to see the "dirty" middle ages. However there was so much absurdity that the sense of realism was shattered every few minutes....
i think it was rather refreshing to learn just how much of a role ROCKETS, smoke bombs, and well-timed lightning apparantly played in everyday middle ages life.
shareJonathan22, I completely agree.
I watched this movie for the first time last night, and I was pretty p!ssed to say the least. In some films the bad guy has some redeeming qualities, and the good guy is so squeaky clean that it's sickening, so you wouldn't mind if the "bad guy" gets away, but in this case Martin was a scumbag, although slightly less of a scumbag than the rest of his crew, a scumbag nonetheless. First, he rapes Agnes, who was a virgin and had nothing to do with their need for revenge. The man she was betrothed to marry, Steven, was the son of the guy who ripped them off, but Steven was angry at his father for doing it to them.
The whole while during the rape scene I was expecting Martin to be some sort of hero and stop it, but he has his way and then stops it, indirectly, by setting some wagons on fire.
I think Agnes threw the key to Stevens chains down the well to Martin in the jug so he could get Steven to help him get out. He gives Steven his word that if he'll help him out then he'll release Steven, yet when Steven does help him out he runs off and leaves him chained up.
Right near the end, he tries to murder Agnes. All in all the guy is just an *beep*
When the end arrives, firstly he somehow miraculously manages to not catch the plague despite being thrown down a well full of infected water, then we find out his neck muscles must be as strong as a baby elephants because when Steven raps a chain around his neck and proceeds to tighten it Martins throat does not collapse, and then we finally discover that Martin has been made of asbestos all along when he manages to escape from that burning room by climbing up the chimney. And why the hell did Agnes not say anything when she saw him climb out of the chimney? He raped her, chained up screwed over the man she's supposed to love, and tried to kill them both, but for some reason she lets him escape?
If I wanted to see a total douchebag screw everyone over and get away with it scot-free time and time again, I'd watch a documentary about Tony Blairs life in politics.
> Jonathan22, I completely agree.
You both totaly didn't get the movie at all.
> hero and stop it, but he has his way and then stops it, indirectly, by
> setting some wagons on fire.
He stops it only because he wants her for himself. For once in his life he wants something that is all and only his.
> I think Agnes threw the key to Stevens chains down the well to Martin in the
> jug so he could get Steven to help him get out. He gives Steven his word that
> if he'll help him out then he'll release Steven, yet when Steven does help
> him out he runs off and leaves him chained up.
Of course. Because he's evil. You don`t understand that these are real ppl in real situations. And real ppl are grey, not black and white. Noboddy in this movies is either good or bad. They all are out for there own intressts and survivals. That makes them so real.
> When the end arrives, firstly he somehow miraculously manages to not catch
> the plague despite being thrown down a well full of infected water,
Mabye because he had it before, survived it or was immune in the first place?
> then we find out his neck muscles must be as strong as a baby elephants
> because when Steven raps a chain around his neck and proceeds to tighten it
> Martins throat does not collapse,
Because Steven is to weak.
> And why the hell did Agnes not say anything when she saw him climb out of the
> chimney? He raped her, chained up screwed over the man she's supposed to
> love, and tried to kill them both, but for some reason she lets him escape?
She is 12 years old! She is still a young girl. And young girls like to play!
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
>You both totaly didn't get the movie at all.
No, we did get the movie. Martin was a dick and no-one in his band of miscreants had a single redeeming quality.
>He stops it only because he wants her for himself. For once in his life he
>wants something that is all and only his.
Further proving my point that he's scum. He rapes Agnes then he even screws over his own friends as well.
>Of course. Because he's evil. You don`t understand that these are real ppl in
>real situations. And real ppl are grey, not black and white. Noboddy in this
>movies is either good or bad. They all are out for there own intressts and
>survivals. That makes them so real.
You just cancelled out your own argument. You say Martin is evil, then you say that nobody in the movie "is either good or bad".
>Mabye because he had it before, survived it or was immune in the first place?
I don't buy that for one second.
>Because Steven is to weak.
Steven is a grown man, I'd suspect that even Agnes would be more than strong enough to have killed someone in this fashion. It wouldn't take much force to collapse someones windpipe using a steel chain.
>She is 12 years old! She is still a young girl. And young girls like to play!
Firstly, I think she's a bit older than 12, and even if she's not she seems bright enough, ie, not mentally crippled in some fashion, to know that when someone rapes you, tries to kill the man you love, then tries to kill you, that he's not the type of person you want to know.
>>He stops it only because he wants her for himself. For once in his life he
>> wants something that is all and only his.
> Further proving my point that he's scum. He rapes Agnes then he even screws
> over his own friends as well.
So what? Thats how RL is! Thats how ppl are!
>>survivals. That makes them so real.
> You just cancelled out your own argument.
No, I didn`t.
> You say Martin is evil, then you say that nobody in the movie "is either good
> or bad".
There are degrees of evil. Martin is evil, but he is less evil then Steven or even the priest, who`s the worst of them all.
>> Mabye because he had it before, survived it or was immune in the first
>> place?
> I don't buy that for one second.
Thats not the point what and if you buy it. It`s a historical and biologal fact.
>>Because Steven is to weak.
> Steven is a grown man,
He's is an immature, sheltered boy. You really didn`t pay much attention when watching the movie.
>>She is 12 years old! She is still a young girl. And young girls like to play!
> Firstly, I think she's a bit older than 12,
Again: historic facts + logical deduction and paying attention. Just because JJL was 17 when the movie was filmed, doesn`t mean her character was the same age. I allready explained that here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0089153/board/flat/14016217
> (...) he's not the type of person you want to know.
Your a total burb.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
I don't think that "degrees of evil" even comes into it. Martin was a total scumbag, there's no 2 ways about it.
>Thats not the point what and if you buy it. It`s a historical and biologal fact.
Erm, this movie didn't actually happen in real life, nothing in it can be considered a "historical and biologal fact". If you're going to get nit-picky then I am too. None of them would have caught bubonic plague from the water as it was spread by fleas. The fleas would bite rats that carried it, then bite a person transferring it to them as well. In addition to this, bubonic plague takes between 3 and 7 days from infection to become evident. What they might have caught from drinking the water was Pharyngeal plague, which is not only extremely rare, but also resembles tonsilitis in it's symptoms so is much less deadly than the bubonic version. From this we can deduce that whatever the dog was infected with was not bubonic plague as we know it, but some extremely virulent form of plague that infects through water and has a incubabtion period of between a few seconds and a few hours (the first woman to drink the water showed signs straight away, some others didn't show any signs until long after). It's fair to say that Martin should have contracted this and been showing symptoms either whilst still in the well or at least before the end of the film.
>He's is an immature, sheltered boy. You really didn`t pay much attention when watching the movie.
I paid plenty of attention, and I still say even a child would be more than capable of crushing someones windpipe with a chain.
About Agnes' age. I'm really not bothered what you said in another post. Just because you've written something twice doesn't make it any more true than if you'd written it once. I'm assuming she's older than 12 based on the marriage records for some royals of around that time I just looked up, the youngest bride was 13, most of them were older. Admittedly I could only find Royal brides, but as Stevens Father seemed to be a member of the nobility that seems reasonable enough. Apart from that, Agnes looked older than 12.
>Your a total burb.
Firstly, it's "you're", shortened from "you are", not "your", and secondly, namecalling is the last resort of the person who knows they've lost the argument.
Martin should have died, I have nothing more to say.
> I don't think that "degrees of evil" even comes into it.
The whole movie is about degrees of evil!
>> (...)It`s a historical and biologal fact.
> Erm, this movie didn't actually happen in real life, nothing in it can be
> considered a "historical and biologal fact".
Historical fact in the sense that these things did happen back then. If you paid attention in history class - yeah, I know, that is a problem in America, since you think history began 1776 - you would know about these things.
> (...) even a child would be more than capable of crushing someones windpipe
> with a chain.
So he's not only weak he's inepdt too. Just proves my point.
> Admittedly I could only find Royal brides,
Those records where keept by the church and where contiunsly altered and forged over time. I wouldn`t put much stock in that.
> but as Stevens Father seemed to be a member of the nobility that seems
> reasonable enough.
That doesn`t make her royal. A lot of ppl where considered royal back then. If you where a landowner alone made you something special.
> Apart from that, Agnes looked older than 12.
It doesn`t matter what she looked! It`s historic fact that girls where married off very soon because they where considered a burden to a family. Much like still in China today. Or why do you think that the brides father still today has to pay for the marriage? Do you even know why ppl wear wedding rings and how they came into use in the first place?
> (...) they've lost the argument.
I`m not making an argument and I can`t loose nothing since my opionions are mine and they`re not easyly changed, especialy by someone who doesn`t know the historic background and facts this movie is based on very well.
The time from ~1000 - 1600 was a hellish time, nothing to do with that MGM King Arthur period stuff (like Ivanhoe (1952) hollywood always tried to shove down ppls throats. They`re were no noble knights and fair maidens living in scrumsous castles. Flesh & Blood is as close and realistic to this time a movie has ever gotten. The other movies are just fairy tailes.
Only in the last couple of years have been there some other movies (King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven, Timeline) who scratch the surface of realisim when it comes to that age. But since theses movies are to realistic allready (despite that they are still way to calm and flat in themselfs when it comes to the depiction of the real circumstances and conditions of that time) they mostly fail at the box office cause you americans keep living in a dream world where you can fight wars and belive you could win by being the good guys.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
You say that these things happened back then, yet you don't say exactly what you mean by "these things", which makes it very difficult to prove or disprove what you're saying. For your information, I'm English, not American.
>So he's not only weak he's inepdt too. Just proves my point.
No it doesn't, it rather rpoves the point that the film is flawed.
>Those records where keept by the church and where contiunsly altered and forged over time. I wouldn`t put much stock in that.
So I'm supposed to believe you saying something, as opposed to actual rcords, on the grounds that you say they're forged?
>It doesn`t matter what she looked! It`s historic fact that girls where married off very soon because they where considered a burden to a family. Much like still in China today. Or why do you think
>that the brides father still today has to pay for the marriage? Do you even know why ppl wear wedding rings and how they came into use in the first place?
Isn't that a sweeping generalisation that just because something did happen that it would have happened in every single case, including the one shown in this one particular film?
>(...)cause you americans
Again, I'm not a yank, and as I already said in my first post, or possibly the post on another thread, if I wanted to watch someone screw everyone around them over, generally be a complete bastard and get away with it over and over again, I'd turn on the TV and watch Tony Blair.
I agree with whoever said this movie sucked. It sucks massively.
For one thing, there's no characters who are remotely decent human beings. A good movie needs at least one heroic person that you can relate to. Or at least a flawed person with redeeming qualites. This movie had none of those things.
The whole "that's how the dark ages were" is complete nonsense. I have a bachelor's degree in Medieval European history, and just because this movie portrays rapes, pillaging, and excessive violence, doesn't make it historically accurate. Making a bleak and depressing movie shouldn't be confused with realism. People who see this pathetic excuse for a film and go "Oh wow, it's so disturbing and these people are disgusting individuals - this must be realistic!" are just being naive.
The Middle Ages long have been misunderstood. The "dark ages" does not apply any more. For all the misery of the time period, it also had its light. And anyway, this movie supposedly takes place in 1501 - the dawn of the Renaissance, so technically it's not even Medieval.
Anyone who thinks this movie is remotely good or historically accurate, is thoroughly lacking in intelligence and taste. Possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
And BTW, I'm American, and who ever said Americans think history started in 1776 acheived nothing except showing us how exceedingly ignorant he is.
> For one thing, there's no characters who are remotely decent human beings. A
> good movie needs at least one heroic person that you can relate to.
In Hollywood movie terms maybe but not IRL.
> Or at least a flawed person with redeeming qualites. This movie had none of
> those things.
It shouldn`t. It`s a very accurate depiction of history and human nature.
> (...) I have a bachelor's degree in Medieval European history,
Maybe you should get your money back then, cause I think they saltpeteld the truth a lot if you really belive this movie issn`t historicly accurate.
Yes, it overdramtzies, it overplays to the point of beeing redicilous. But you can`t really say these thing didn`t happen back then and life wasn`t like that back then.
Of course that all these things didn`t happen all at once or in such rapid succuession especialy to such a small group of ppl is just logical. But everything that is depicted there did happen every day back then.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
"> Or at least a flawed person with redeeming qualites. This movie had none of
> those things.
It shouldn`t. It`s a very accurate depiction of history and human nature. "
So you're saying that most people have NO redeeming qualities? If you think that low of the human race, that's really sad. I've met some pretty shady people in my life, however the great majority of the people I meet are decent, compassionate and possess a conscience. The people in this disgrace of a movie were one-dimensional crazy-loons. You think that's "an accurate depiction of the human race?" Hmm, maybe in Germany.
" (...) I have a bachelor's degree in Medieval European history,
Maybe you should get your money back then, cause I think they saltpeteld the truth a lot if you really belive this movie issn`t historicly accurate. "
I don't believe "they" (professors, books, historical sources, research assistants, field work) distorted any truth about Medieval times. (At the very least they taught me spelling and grammar. Something that you need to brush up on, obviously.)
"Yes, it overdramtzies, it overplays to the point of beeing redicilous. But you can`t really say these thing didn`t happen back then and life wasn`t like that back then.
Of course that all these things didn`t happen all at once or in such rapid succuession especialy to such a small group of ppl is just logical. But everything that is depicted there did happen every day back then."
Obviously rapes, brutal murders, pillaging took place in the Middle Ages. Good God. OBVIOUSLY. Hate to clue you in, but these same things are happening in the world TODAY. You can take all the nasty, cruel, inhuman events of ANY time period and make it out to look like some dark age.
I guess I'm just saying that the Middle Ages and the people in that time weren't as brutal as it's made out to appear in these gore-fest movies. Their worldview might have been small, thanks to the Church, and superstitions were rampant; however they were still PEOPLE with decency and compassion.
>>> (...) those things.
>> It shouldn`t. It`s a very accurate depiction of history and human nature. "
> So you're saying that most people have NO redeeming qualities?
Not in a survival situation like that.
> If you think that low of the human race, that's really sad.
I just saw and done a lot more then you and know ppl much better.
> I've met some pretty shady people in my life, however the great majority of
> the people I meet are decent, compassionate and possess a conscience.
Naive burbs who have no clue about the real world.
> The people in this disgrace of a movie were one-dimensional crazy-loons.
Actually they act pretty normal. Like ppl act in situations like this.
> You think that's "an accurate depiction of the human race?"
Yes, very accurate.
> Hmm, maybe in Germany.
No. But in places like the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Angola, Zaire, Somalia, the Congo, Katanga, Nigeria... places I used to work, quiaff?
>>> (...) I have a bachelor's degree in Medieval European history,
>> (...) a lot if you really belive this movie issn`t historicly accurate. "
> (...) field work) distorted any truth about Medieval times.
Teachers and historieans like to bend things to make them fit there POV.
> (At the very least they taught me spelling and grammar. Something that you
> need to brush up on, obviously.)
Before you don`t speak/write as well german as I english, you don`t get to say anything about that to me. And while we`re throwing around critizicm (SP?): http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>> (...) everything that is depicted there did happen every day back then."
> (...) Hate to clue you in, but these same things are happening in the world
> TODAY.
Don`t try tell me anything about the RW. Your to civilized to know about that.
> I guess I'm just saying that the Middle Ages and the people in that time
> weren't as brutal as it's made out to appear in these gore-fest movies.
And thats where you wrong.
> (...) still PEOPLE with decency and compassion.
If your an ostrich perhaps.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
It's official: Tank-The-Hatchet is an ignorant, cynical person quite out of touch with reality. Quite like the maker of Flesh and Blood. Perhaps that's why you like it so much? Perhaps Daddy yelled at you one too many times when you were younger, now you believe the world is evil.
In any case, I hate this movie - any one with half a brain knows it's an inaccurate, campy piece of trash. I pity anyone who takes it for a real "glimpse" into Medieval times. Shows how uneducated they are.
This is my last posting on this board, since it's a waste of time arguing with a total hack.
> It's official: Tank-The-Hatchet is an ignorant, cynical person quite out of
> touch with reality.
I`ve seen your world - and you can keep it.
> (...) Perhaps that's why you like it so much?
I like it for many things. Foremost because it`s realistic.
> (...) now you believe the world is evil.
I've seen real evil or what a burb like you would call evil first hand.
> (...) an inaccurate, campy piece of trash. I pity anyone who takes it for a
> real "glimpse" into Medieval times. Shows how uneducated they are.
Repeating your argument doesn't make you less wrong.
> This is my last posting on this board, since it's a waste of time arguing
> with a total hack.
You see that you can`t win and so you start crying and take your toys home? Very immature. But on the other I`ve driven off another Denny Pattyn/Tony Perkins/Jack Thompson supporter. So... yeah - for me!
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
What exactly is a "burb", other than a shortening of the word "suburb"? You seem to enjoy calling people it, yet never give any clue as to what you think it means.
>Repeating your argument doesn't make you less wrong.
*cough*hypocrite*cough*
>You see that you can`t win and so you start crying and take your toys home? Very immature. But on the other I`ve driven off another Denny Pattyn/Tony Perkins/Jack Thompson supporter. So... yeah - for me!
I suggest you find your nearest psychiatryst and inform them that you're suffering from a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder and that you need to begin treatment right away.
> What exactly is a "burb", (...)
If you don`t know, your most likley are one. FR: A burb is someone like Mr. Rogers or Pollyanna or the ppl of Pleasantville before color came to town. PPL who work 9-5 jobs, beeing content in there hivementality and only carrying about cutting the lawn on Saturday. There expierences are restricted to shakeing there heads at the news every night and mubeling How evil and sick the world is.
> (...) your nearest psychiatryst
I hate shrinks. There even worse then burbs. They only have there little slotboxworld and if they can`t fit you into one of these, then someting must be wrong with you. Any hint of indviuality and none-borg-obbidence to the masses makes you a danger to soceity and you need to be locked up in there POV.
They pretend to know everything in the world but in reality they don`t have a clue cause all they know about the world is from books.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
> (...) yet you don't say exactly what you mean by "these things",
I see this movie as a general road map of things that where day to day life back then. Of course, it overplay itself and it does have some historic and technical inaccuracies but in a general sense the movie is a very good and accurate discription of what life was like in that time.
> For your information, I'm English, not American.
Sorry, didn`t know that. But I generally assume that the mayority of ppl on IMDB are american, especially if they don`t have profilies that say anything about them. Beeing english gives you back some credibility.
>> So he's not only weak he's inepdt too. Just proves my point.
> No it doesn't, it rather rpoves the point that the film is flawed.
Where? That it depicts Steven as what he is? A bookwormy-geek that doesn`t know much if anything about RL and whos strength are in the mind and not in the body? I rather thing showing him failing in a pyhisical situation like that just furthers his character.
> >Those records where keept by the church and where contiunsly altered and
>> forged over time. I wouldn`t put much stock in that.
> So I'm supposed to believe you saying something,
No. I`m not the cathlic church. I don`t require you to belive without question.
> as opposed to actual rcords, on the grounds that you say they're forged?
I just reminded you to keep that in mind if you check records from that time. And if you try to use them as proof for anything, that many ppl - but me especially, in this case - won`t acknoledge that as proof for anything.
>> (...) first place?
> Isn't that a sweeping generalisation that just because something did happen
> that it would have happened in every single case, including the one shown in
> this one particular film?
The movie is a generalisation, a cut-out of and even overdramatization of events during that time.
If you take all what happens in this movie in the historic context, you`ll soon find and agree that Verhoeven indented to also portray that aspect of day to day life back then.
So it`s more likley - for anyone with some commen sense and historic knowledge - to conclude that Agnes is supposed to be much, much younger then she looks. Especially given that he (Verhoeven) gives us so many reference points and clues for her actually age and not the age JJL was when it was shot.
Verhoeven just wanted to show as many aspects as possibel of day to day life back then as he could and to not make that just a meaningless series of events he made them part of the story. AFAIR he even says that in AC on the DVD at some point.
>> (...)cause you americans
> Again, I'm not a yank,
Sorry, apoligize again.
> (...) generally be a complete bastard and get away with it over and over
> again,
You are entitled to not like this movie. I don`t wanna change your view there and I would never try. But if you don`t like something, dislike it for the right reassons. Just because a movie has some historic/tecnical/scientific goofs doesn`t make it bad. If I would start to do that I could barly watch any movie any more, because there is always something that makes me chrunch or smile in pain when it comes to that area.
> I'd turn on the TV and watch Tony Blair.
I can't really comment on him cause we don`t really get to see or hear much from him, so I don`t know his personallity at all. But I generally don`t like politicans so it really doesn`t matter what kind of person he is to me.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
LOL Hatchet, u tool!!
Is your favorite film A clockwork Orange by any chance?
phucking inbred
> Is your favorite film A clockwork Orange by any chance?
No. It`s Dawn of the Dead (the original, not the lame remake). You can find all these interessting titbits in my profile. If you still want to know stuff fell free to ask.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
Sorry, didn`t know that. But I generally assume that the mayority of ppl on IMDB are american, especially if they don`t have profilies that say anything about them. Beeing english gives you back some credibility.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Should we believe that you are more credible because you are a German? Right.
As far as I am concerned, you just lost all credibility with that remark.
I fart in your general direction.
[deleted]
[deleted]
First of all: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>>>> (...) wants something that is all and only his.
>>> (...) over his own friends as well.
>> So what? Thats how RL is! Thats how ppl are!
> That's not exactly how real life is. That's not how real people are. Not
> every one is a scumbag.
You must`ve lived a very shelterd life.
> Not everyone believes that women need to be raped and humiliated.
They need to? Most certainly not. But it`s a statisticl fact that every women get`s raped at some point in her life at least once. In this rape is defined as any kind of unwanted or unasked sexuall penetraition.
>>> (...) or bad".
>> (...) who`s the worst of them all.
> How is Martin less evil than Steven,
Cause he does everything to get Agnes back. It doesn`t matter to what he has to sink to. He just wants his girl. I can totaly relate to him there.
> (...) Did Steven betray his friends?
They werrn't his friends. But he certainly has no quarrel of letting his father using the nun against Hawkwood to get him to cooperate. Or when they meet the raped girl that has Agnes dress. He ain`t very friendly to her either.
>>>> (...) young girls like to play!
>>> Firstly, I think she's a bit older than 12,
>> Again: historic facts + logical deduction and paying (...)
> Just because Agnes is 12, doesn't mean she should be stupid. The scumbag
> tried to kill her, and with what she went through, most twelve year olds with
> an education would've grown up fast. If this was real she wouldn't want to
> play with her own life, she'd want Martin dead, so he couldn't hurt her
> anymore.
She doesn`t realize the real consequences of her action untill the very end when Martin does try to kill her. That is when she finally reacts like you say. Up to that point everything is a big game for her.
> And also JJL was 23 when this movie came out. She was born in 1962. The film
> came out in 1985. If anything, she was 22 during filming."
Wrong. Just listen to the AC and the bonusmaterial on the "Fast Times at Rigdemont High" DVD. There she admits that she lied to get that part, makeing herself several years younger. She was 14/15 when she did "FT@RH" by her own admission. So she was 18, maybe 19 when she did "Flesh & Blood". After "Existenz" came out she corrected her age offically.
>>> (...) he's not the type of person you want to know.
>> Your a total burb.
> So your saying that you'd want to befriend someone
I actually know ppl like Martin. Can`t say I ever did like them very much or would call them friends.
> who shows no loaylty to "friends" and enjoys raping young women?
My comment wassn`t meant in that way. You sounded like you never mett someone like that. Which goes back to what I just sayed again: You must live a very shelterd live. Hencefort: Your a burb. Get it?
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
[deleted]
You just lived an obviously harsh life if you think everyone is like Martin & that he has ANY good in him whatsoever, after he rapes Agnes & treats her like his property.
Even in history their are people who, under the worst of conditions, don't turn to barbarism & savagery. They stay true to themselves & keep their humanity.
[deleted]
First off: i dont think talking about someone like this is a good idear. But since i know Mike somewhat i keep this public for now so he can weigh in whenever he thinks he needs to.
Tank sees ALL things as GREY.
If you're not with him, you're against him.
If you don't agree with him
(or use the word "worldly"), your a burb. If your american, your uneducated & ignorant of the truth of the world.
How about Ghandi.
And afterwards, continued to live a modest life.
Joan of Arc.
Never cowering, even when she was burned at the stake.
These are real heroes.
People who risked themsleves for what they believed in.
And when things got dark, they didn't cower,
they didn't attack those they would normally love.
They stayed true to themselves.
> (...) All ways eventually lead to Brighton. There you have to decied what you
> want to be: A sheep or a wolf.
Your actually hitting him with that? You have to be a 100 years old to know that saying!
He ain`t never gone get that - even if he would`ve seen that movie. And that is how I know that saying!
I`ve never have it actually heared used cause no one knows what it means anymore.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
[deleted]
>> How about Ghandi.
> Ghandi was a fool.
No. He won freedom from oppression, through peaceful protest.
Yes, but he didn't abuse his power.
He didn't import slaves. Didn't subjugate the weak. He worked toward making India a better place.
No, again. She was sold out by the French, after she won their major battles.
Even if she'd repented, the English would have most likely thrown her in prison, permanently, or killed her anyway. She was too dangerous to be set free.
So, your sisters boyfriend, who saved the two of you from rape & burning at the stake, is a dead fool? He didn't do anything good by helping the two of you, he should let them kill you?
Again, assuming your sisters boyfriend at least cared for her, he didn't "believe" she was worth his sacrifice? He could have died. Six against one? In any fight, there's a chance that you won't make it, no matter how good (at fighting) you are. So he chanced his life & saved you both. How stupid of him.
As should've your sister's boyfriend, right. So he should've run, or stayed & helped them.
I don't know how big he is, but I can't imagine him as "cudly".
Actually they were leaders. Tank is the sheep. He followed orders just like a good little soldier. Did everything they told him, whether it was against personal morals or not.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Gods, look at the bloody context! Agnes is a medieval noblewoman and a bit of a b*tch. Rape isn't that big of a deal for her, as long as it is a strong leader doing it... Her goal is to be the woman of the strongest man, and she couldn't care less if he rapes her to get her... She WANTED Martin to rape her because that was a profitable situation for her!
She hits Martin with the bottle because he is ruined and royally screwed, because his castle is being overrun, not because she prefers Steven over him... She tries to save Steven not because she likes him that much, but because she wants to have an alternate way out... Throughout the film, she looks for the strongest male and hangs herself on his neck...
[deleted]
> Wow, everyones perception of what's going on in this movie, is so different.
I think it greatly depends on your own background and expierences how you see this movie.
> (...) if her character in the movie "wanted" Martin to rape her, i guess this
> movie does glorify rape.
It would be that way if it was that way. But it ain`t.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
> Gods, look at the bloody context!
Ack.
> Agnes is a medieval noblewoman and a bit of a b*tch.
Yes.
> (...) She WANTED Martin to rape her because that was a profitable situation
> for her!
Nack. I know girl who are into this pseudo-rape-fantasybit. But Agnes didn`t know anything about anything. I don't she really wanted it. I woudl rather say it was a quite traumatizing expierence for her that will make her apprehensive of men and sex in generall in the future.
> (...) because his castle is being overrun,
It wasn`t his castle to begin with.
> Throughout the film, she looks for the strongest male and hangs herself on
> his neck...
That is true. She does play a lot of power games thinking she`s in charge, but in reality she issn`t.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
This thread should be renamed "Take on the Tank!" I know it's a late comment, but I read all this while watching the movie and smoking. *cough*
Damn this movie is funny to watch on an old 52" TV.
"My Father's half-dead. My bride has been captured. And you're babbling on about seedlings?"
boys boys, it's just a film! do try and remember to suspend your disbelief. isabella, wife of edward the second,(the shewolf of france, remember her?) was about 12 when she married edward the second, this was normal for people of their class. it was about dynastic chess, in real life lines get blurred. your simplistic veiws of history are quite sweet, but oh dear....if you want to complain about a film try braveheart, it has so many holes you could strain the veggies through it !
share[deleted]
"> And why the hell did Agnes not say anything when she saw him climb out of the
> chimney? He raped her, chained up screwed over the man she's supposed to
> love, and tried to kill them both, but for some reason she lets him escape? "
You know, i don't know if you know this but a lot of times women like the big bad alpha males...morality not needed.
>> (...) considered a burden to a family.
> (...) So in wealthy families, offspring were married off in their mid teens,
That too.
> while in the lower classes, the average marriage age was 24 for women and 27
> for men.
Historic records (does maintained by the churches where the marriages actually took place, not by the monastary where they where keeped and lots of times forged over time) say different.
In central europe (what is today Germany, Poland, Chzecheslowakia, Austria, Switzerland) between 1400-1600 the marriage age was 12 for girls and 35 for men.
In France/Belgium it was 14 for girls and 40 for men.
In Italy it was 10 for girls and 50 for men.
In eastern europe (Balkans) it was 12 for girls and 35 for men.
In Iberia it was 15 for girls and 20 for men.
Any records after the 40 year wars souldn`t be considerd because then the records where soly keeped by monastaries where they where rewritten and alterd during over time.
Any record from before 1390 is to be considered highly dubious because not a lot of recordes exist from this time and those who still are exist are mostly keeped in rectories. Due to the sheer lack of data no really clear statistical analyses can be performed.
Historic art work on the other hand is a much better source of information because it can clearly be dated.
Before you ask where I got those number: I researched them, so can you.
But don`t be so stupid to cite Wikepedia or the Popal Archives in Rome. While informative, they are more humouros then really based on facts.
The French national archives, the Belgian medieval historic work group at the University of Flandern in Gent and the Magdeburg historic libary in Germany are much more usefull.
Later especially if it comes to events surrounding and leading up to the so called Massaker at Magdeburg. They have the most completed statistical records leading up to the 40 year wars up to that event.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
> I cited my source.
Just you forgot to mention that Laslett was an expert on the 17. century, specificly Great Britan.
This movie plays at the begining of the 16. century in Iberia.
So Lasletts work has really now value in this disscusion.
If you want to mention names, someone who has reall knowlegde of the subject then you can mention Hiller or Horst. Both are experts on that time period and have written many excellent biographys of ppl who lived back then.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
Nobody likes a history geek who keeps pushing his smelly balls in your face...
It's just stupid to try and get your right by screaming facts while the treath started about the FEEL of this movie!
Furthermore: You don't know how things were in those days because you weren't there! History is an interpretation, and doesn not give the absolute facts. I am a scolar myself, and have found that science itself doesn't give all the answers. Scientists always colour their findings, escpecially if those findings are subject to interpretation like history. Also, why does living in Europe give people more credibility? This is the 21th century, and Americans have books too you ignoramus! By the way, I'm Dutch. Guess that gives me some credibility...
It's a movie, not a history book.
> Nobody likes a history geek who keeps pushing his smelly balls in your
> face...
Here`s one more: Among the varrious hints on how old Agnes is that are in the movie, her name is the biggest hint of all.
St. Agnes was a roman girl that refused to get married to a noblemans son. Because according to roman law virgings could not be executed, she was consequently rapped and got her throath slit. She was 12 years old.
> (...) started about the FEEL of this movie!
I didn`t take it OT.
> You don't know how things were in those days because you weren't there!
True. But among others things I happen to live in an area that has a lot of ties into these times. So we get told a lot of stuff about these times and visit a lot of historic buildings, castles and ruins when we go to school around here. And the teachers are not very squimish when it comes to describing these times. If you ever had been to the Gelnhausen Hexenturm or the Ronneburg you would know what I mean.
The movie can`t be that inaccurate since it became a history teaching tool in german schools since it has been releassed on video for the first time in 1986. It`s shown in history class in 7th grade as my girlfriend tells me and they even have to write an essay on it.
> (...) History is an interpretation
By whom? That`s the whole point! If you got some tight-up american right wing conservatist who runs around with blinkers or somebody open-minded makes a hell of a lot of difference.
> (...) and Americans have books too
But they are more worried about the price of gas then reading books. Or they are of the missguided opinion that if it`s not accesable over the Internet, Wikipedia in particular, it doesn`t exist. Takeing some books in there hand and actually reading them would be an asset. But they mostly don`t even own a libary card.
> (...) I'm Dutch. Guess that gives me some credibility...
Not if you like soccer.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
yeah, a movie full of scumbags with no likeable character in site
http://www.coprophagor.com/flatmar.htm
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I watched this movie 4 the 1st time the other day and i gotta agree that its not very good. Anybody that says that it has any basis in reallity is slightly out of touch with it themselves and the plot is weak.
1) the lightning strike thing...What was that!?
2) women dont enjoy being raped, not now, not then not ever (this is a warped fantasy)
3) the plague thing was a joke (makes good cinema though i can forgive)
4) near the end she obviously berayed them and they just forgave her and their all buddy buddy wtf?
5) at the beginning they destroyed the city gates without seige by running at them?
6) why did the nun have a mounted gun pointed into the streets anyway and why hide behind a cutain? What happened to that thoroughly unnecessary sub plot anyway?
7) cannon shots dont explode they make tiny little holes
8) look at the time difference between the room being completely on fire and him escaping from the window, sorry but hed be dead dead dead....Dead! And who cares his chracter couldnt be more 2-dimentionally selfish and evil.
its not clever its painfully simple!
9, 10, 11 i could go on but i rate it 6/10 for cheap kicks and 2/10 for basis in reallity...because there are no aliens.
(sorry havent read all the posts so forgive me if im just sayin the same stuff over).
>> You must`ve lived a very shelterd life."
> (...) But I also KNOW that not everyone is a scumbag.
Then you havn`t meet enough ppl yet.
> You just lived an obviously harsh life if you think everyone is like Martin &
I don`t think everybody is like Martin. But I know a lot of ppl who are like him.
> that he has ANY good in him whatsoever,
I don`t think there is any good in him.
> (...) They stay true to themselves & keep their humanity.
And that is what get`s them killed. If you where in a situation like that - like in the movie - and you would let your guard down for one second or you would let your own huamnity interfere it would get you dead in an instant.
>>>>>> (...) young girls like to play!
>>>>> Firstly, I think she's a bit older than 12,
>>>> Again: historic facts + logical deduction and paying (...)
>>> Just because Agnes is 12, (...)
>> (...) Up to that point everything is a big game for her.
> (...) So after he tried to kill her, she still wants to play & see if he can
> kill her later?
We don`t really know what she`s thinking. Maybe she doesn`t realize that it is Martin that she`s seeing. Maybe she thinks him to be a ghost. But at that point I think she`s done with the games. She only wants everything over. And that includes Steven not to get hurt. So she keeps her mouth should. Maybe she did learn something after all. We would need a sequel to find out her true motivation not to say something.
But knowing girls like her and girls who expierenced stuff like that I tend to think there is still something itchying in her and that even Martin tried to kill her she is still a little bit uncertain.
You have to keep in mind that she is pretty manipulative and I tend to think that it would take more then what Martin did to her to really change her spirit.
As I said: noone in this movie is truly good. That is how ppl are. Only out for there own intressts and always - even while doing so called good - haveing there own agendas.
> (...) Just because someone doesn't hold your views, doesn't make them less
> intelligent nor worldly.
Just by saying that you prove that you - again! - didn`t understand my meaning: It`s not beeing about wordly - which btw. is a typical burb word, just like begining a sentence with It`s sick and offensive... - it`s about expierence, especialy personal expierence.
> She says that she has never lied about her age.
You also do know that she has had/still has severe mental problems and was/is on medication? She has had at least two major mental breakdowns (after shooting "Miami Blues" and "SWF") that became puplic and she had to be hospitalized. David Cronenberg is found of saying about her: "If she doesn`t play a character in a movie, she doesn`t have a personality."
BTW: She admits that herself on the "FT@RH" DVD. Amy Heckerling comments on that in the documentary that she was very shocked when she found out just after shooting had finished and she was glad that it never came out until years later because she had fear of legal consequences.
> If they are wrong,
I wouldn`t trust in much of the info that is on IMDB. That is because everybody can enter it and most of it goes unchecked.
> why don't you let them know & correct them.
A lot of valuable info just doesn`t get entered because the ppl at IMDB are to arrogant to factcheck it and just think because they are working for IMDB and if they don`t know about it it can`t be true.
There are some movies that have been anounced in the trades or are shooting and they just never make it into the IMDB because if someone requests them as a title to be entered they just get rebuffed.
IMDB fact checkers are not real movie buffs. There biggest job is heckeling boardposters about "PC"-ness. Most of them never have been working in the industrie before they took that job. They don`t read the trade papers if they can even name them.
I`ve found that movies often go unentered for years, never get an entry at all or even get entered and then deleted despite that they are major studio productions who get announced in Varitey and the Hollywood Reporter who actually get made.
But let`s get back to the topic before the IMDB GeStaPo comes down on us again.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
> (...) But not everyone falls to Martin's level of depravity.
Obuisly you never been to Africa.
>>> that he has ANY good in him whatsoever,
>> I don`t think there is any good in him.
> Grey would insinuate that he has some redeeming quality. (...) And
> Martin is Black, he is evil to the core.
He does prevent Agnes from beeing gangraped. He does it to have her for himself, but in a way it makes him slightly grey. Just a bit.
>>>(...) they stay true to themselves & keep their humanity.
>> And that is what get`s them killed. (...)
> (...) do so without purposely killing innocents, if it's avoidable.
Only the mission and completing it counts.
> It means that you don't let the animal out unchecked by your own intelligence
> & morals.
There is no moral in battle. Just like there is no honor or heroisim.
> You claim that your a soldier of some sort, correct.
I was, for a time, what today would be called a PMC working for Oil Companies and Mining Consortiums all over the world.
> When you go into a battle, do you use your intelligence?
If the bullets start flying there issn`t much time to think. Your instincts take over. And it`s over so fast that you rarely have time to comprehend what happend most of the time.
> Do you take postions that you hope will keep you safe?
Your thinking of conventional trench warfare kind of situations. What you face today are COINs, mostly in urban sourroundings involving a lot of CQB.
> Do you gun down everyone in sight, everytime you enter a village?
When we found someone was stealing gas from a pipeline damaging it in the process - they like to do that in Nigeria - and we caught him or found out which village he was from our SOP was to go to that village, seperate the man and boys; the girls and the women ... well, this is not the place to tell about things like that. There was usally one left alive in the end to tell the tale to others that they knew that stealing gas and damaging the pipeline would have dire consequences. You ever seen Tears of the Sun? Good movie. Or watch Scorticateli vivi. It's more realistic. But it`s probally pretty hard to find outside of Europe.
>> That is how people are. Only out for there own interests and always - even
>> while doing so called good - having there own agendas.
> Not everyone is like that. If I saw MountainCreekBlueEyedGirl & her sister
> being attacked & raped, I would do everything I could to help them.
Sandy told me that story some time ago. Maybe you should have her tell it to you before you start makeing assumptions. A human person like you will immedatly think that her sisters boyfriend went above and beyound the call of duty in what he did. I on the other hand think that theses scumbags got of easy and he took pitty on them. But that is just IMO.
>>> She says that she has never lied about her age.
>> You also do know that she has had/still has severe mental (...)
> But when you say that she said it on FT@RH, she's clearly telling the truth.
Point is that several other ppl on the production said the same thing.
> Kinda like when you said that we shouldn't trust Church records, but that the
> church records you talk about should be trusted, because you trust them.
Maybe you should read that again.
> Also, she couldn't have been 17 during filming. If she was, the film would be
> illegal in the U.S., which it's not, and Rutger Hauer & Paul Verhoeven
> would've had legal action taken against them, which they haven't.
It was shoot in Spain. So it doesn`t matter in the US.
>> I wouldn`t trust in much of the info that is on IMDB. (...)
> I didn't. I looked it up & found 2 other sites. (...)
Where do you think they got that info? They just copied it. Until you can show me a copy of her birth certificate I know what I know.
> Do you believe that you are never wrong?
No. But usually if I`m wrong ppl tend to start dying.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
>> (...) and boys; the girls and the women ...
> So you *CENSORED!*
You are makeing asumptions again... Besides that I'm not into dark meat. Never liked it. Some guys in the battalion I commanded where, but that issn`t my problem. If Exxon or BP considers terror to be an effective weapon (I rather think that every time you put a dozend ppl against a wall or flamethrow a village the revolution tends to grow...) and if Amercians don`t mind that there own military is killing 50k ppl so they can save a nickle on a gallon of gas who am I to judge? I got paid 100k$ a month tax free to run a battalion. That is my only concern. That and that I get the men & women under my command safe home alive. Some ppl tend to be worth more then others. It`s the way of the world.
>> (...) and he took pitty on them. But that is just IMO.
> Actually, I don't think he went far enough. (...)
Ask her... that is all I say about that.
> (...) if your employer told you to.
This is where you wrong again. I have morals. They are just considered outside the main stream. Besides that: the chances of us ever meeting each other exceept on the internet are totaly remote. After all she lives somewhere in the sticks in the middle of nowhere of America and I live in Germany!
>> It was shoot in Spain. So it doesn`t matter in the US.
> Actually, it does. If she was 17 or younger, then the film would be banned in
> the U.S.. It doesn't matter where the film was shot.
No it doesn`t. After the Tin Drum and Tracy Lords affairs the US Supreme Court ruled that the MPAA (or any other US-body for that matter) has no legal right or way to ban any movie picture on the basis of the perception it might create except if a law was clearly broken (which was in the later case) and if that movie was shoot outside the US local law would have to be applied first. (Which is a cornerstone of international law btw. and does ruffle some feathers at times; like women in Africa beeing stoned under Sharialaw.)
Spanish law does prohibted sexuall depection of minors in movies, but only if it`s actual depiction not simulated, which in Flesh & Blood it is.
So it could'nt be banned in the US.
At the time of it`s releasse some Danny Pettyn minded folks tried that argument btw. But they quickly got shut down.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
>> (...) well, this is not the place to tell about things like that.
> That's the impression you're statement leaves.
If you think so. But if I would explain why I really didn`t care about these orders you would accuse me of being a racist and a bigot. These are just things that fall into my view of the world. Some things I do, some I don`t. It`s hard for ppl to understand me if your not me.
>> (...) to be: A sheep or a wolf.
> (...) someone who kills for pleasure (...)
I resend that. I ain`t Jason Vorhees. Killing is a necessity at times. Nothing more.
> (...) I'm neither.
The point of that saying is that you have to choose. You can only be one thing or the other. There is no middle way. You can either act or not. That either makes you a sheep or a wolf.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> So I'm taking my posts (not ALL of them, just the ones between the 3 of us.)
> & leaving.
See? That`s exactly what Sandy said: You can`t win and so you take your toys and leave.
--
"I used to be Tommy Vercetti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
[deleted]
I'm with you. I kind of hated all the characters, and so I just got tired of watching it after a while. But they just kept prolonging the story, and it eventually meandered to a semi interesting finish, where Steven, despite everything that had happened, decides that no, actually, Agnes is okay and they'll live a happy uncomplicated life together, and Agnes decides that, despite everything, she'll let the man who raped her and whom she has been conspiring to escape from for most of the movie get away free, thus likely starting a chain of events that will have him beating down the door of whatever horrible place they decide to raise their doomed family, preparing to rape/kidnap her and kill said doomed family, which might actually stem the breeding of such unlikeable characters for future generations.
Honestly though, I can't quite put my finger on why this movie left me in such a cranky mood. Maybe it's the fact that I read a review calling the rape scene "realistic" when it culminates in the heroine hissing "you think you're hurting me, you're not, I like it" which is either a trivialization of rape, or not rape at all, but Paul Verhoeven's fantasy about how "strong" women behave in the face of adversity. Maybe it's the idea one poster gave that Agnes let Martin go because "she's twelve and she likes to play games" which must be one of the most simplistic and misogynistic summaries of a character's motivations, instead of my own, which is simply simplistic and comes down to: the character is wishy washy as hell and this movie sucks.
Lemon curry?!
To the OP and anyone who gave up on this film: you can find at least some pleasure in it if you view it not expecting to be conventionally, apart from its exploitation value, entertained. First of all, to some, it's refreshing to see a film that presents Europe-before-the-Enlightenment as the violent, corrupt, unhealthy, life-is-cheap place it was (other examples include Braveheart, Ironclad, and Kingdom of Heaven, bits of Highlander). It's also interesting to see an example of unconventional film making--how many other serious films can you name that have tried to make you hate virtually every character?
Yes, to a degree the characters are indeed one-dimensional, but they're still interesting to examine; especially in their repulsiveness. Hawkwood, the least unlikeable of the Arnolfini side, comes across as a Wehrmacht yes-man. Martin can be viewed almost as a Stalin--killing left and right both for his own pleasure, to maintain his leadership, and in the perceived justice of his cause. The little boy/ Martin's squire can be seen as a Hitlerjugend member. Agnes, something of a creep already (the scene with her maid) seems to degenerate into madness from her experience. Simon, as others stated, reveals his true nature, as a man every bit as evil as his father, as the film progresses.
As far as a more pleasing ending to the movie, what would you have liked to see? All in all I found the ending quite satisfying based on what the film had presented. Nearly all of the degenerate mercenaries were killed, a considerable number of Arnolfini's yes-men lost their lives, both Steven and Agnes paid heavily for being such creeps, the closest thing to a likeable character (Martin's squire) lives, and the bigoted doctor recognizes the value of modern medicine.