MovieChat Forums > Dead Man's Shoes (2004) Discussion > For what are supposed to be a group of, ...

For what are supposed to be a group of, perhaps, somewhat "dumb" meadows/village/countryside folks...

posted 2 years ago by TheMan18 (13182)
15 replies | jump to latest

... besides them SPOILERS ALERT, being guilty of bullying and driving that young man Anthony to suicide, that group of people, who at times did come across as laughably stupid (such as, for instance, not being able to recognize a gas mask and talk about the man's "massive eyes", not being able to read the word "Nob" spray painted on that man's jacket etc), they also at times seemingly did to be smart and knowledgeable as well.

For example, one guy knew who Sonny & Cher were. Some of them were able to communicate well about astronauts and doing experiment for drug mixes. Some of them knew about sexual stuff etc.

And what did you make of them, cheers.

reply

[–] Hybrid66 (1516) 2 years ago

They didn't know about ''sexual stuff''?

One thought the phrase Al Fresco was ''taking it up the arse''.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

No, they DID seem to know about it.

Also, their English was rather good as well and they knew how to use mobile phones and even drive.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

Also, on a side note, from maybe 2005 or so but...

I miss that ONE THREAD on this site that attempted to discuss this movie's "massive eyes" confusion scene, "one bullet" scene and why they drove away when they saw him with an axe, how Richard knew where they'll be and how he used Pot Noodles against them, how that man with a "Nob" jacket was wearing it everywhere even with the paint on etc etc etc.

I know that with years if not more than one DECADE threads DO get deleted but still... That was kinda classic. :)

And even more than that - well, to each their own but in it, from what I remember, mostly sensible talk, no overt fights and arguments, constant accusations of trolling OR stupidity etc. Still... Miss that one. Or maybe its archived in the IMDb classics section or something.

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

I'm convinced. You've convinced me. You are an Ai. You a bot learning, well atleast trying. When it happens, just nuke my suburb first. I cannot be fucked dealing with our robot overlords.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

What on Earth??

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

Classic bot question.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

IMDb user TC Raymond's line for one movie has inspired me with that quote, lol. :)

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

Ah, what? But yes, please try to proof you arent one. You're doing a fine job as we speak.

Regail me with your intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

One day but in the meantime, I kind of want to discuss this movie's aspects a little more.

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

I thought this movie was pretty good. It's been a couple since I've seen it. It was low budge , in a good way. It kinda feels like noone is making movies like this anymore, even though I could guarantee they are.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

Point was I briefly remembered one thread on this movie's page back at IMDb and I became somewhat nostalgic about it. It covered some interesting points there too.

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

Interest is in the eye of the beholder.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY...

I was just watching the review of a film called "Eye of the Beholder" (1999), lol...

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

You watched the movie? Or a review of the movie?

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13182) 2 years ago

I've SEEN the film, YES, but at that time, I was watching its review on YouTube. :)

reply