MovieChat Forums > tph890 > Replies
tph890's Replies
I think it's because the thing doesn't like to take chances. It only assimilates a single person at a time--an isolated member of the team--throughout the film. So even having everyone tied up was not enough for it to feel safe enough to assimilate one of them. It would be totally exposed. And what if someone got loose during the process?
The better position would be to fool the others into believing that it (Mac) could not possibly be a thing, therefore ensuring its survival in at least one form while widdling down the rest of the crew.
Being drunk makes you see things sideways...
That's what I always thought, at least.
I agree with you regarding the premise of the film. It's mood certainly breeds a feeling of paranoia in the viewer (myself admittedly included). But I have to disagree with your point regarding the 'chess sacrifice'. In chess, a good sacrifice also takes into account position. A piece is only as powerful as its position, and I feel like that element of the sacrifice must be taken into account regarding this situation.
Of course, this idea still relies on the presumption that the Thing(s)--though in separate physical forms--are somehow connected and able to communicate and conspire with each other.
I was thinking that, since they are a part of the same cellular organism, perhaps they could share between themselves the characteristics/knowledge of anyone (or anything) they've assimilated by simple skin to skin contact, such as a handshake or maybe by simply bumping into each other, and therefore be able to conspire with one another to foster a false sense of security in any of the un-assimilated crew. Hence, a sacrifice for 'position'.
But this is simply conjecture on my part.
However, if the Thing IS just one organism spread out through different hosts, this may be possible...
Cheers!
You make some valid points. In order for my theory to work there would have to be some kind of collective consciousness thing going on, or the thing would have to be able to control different parts of itself independently--like down to each individual cell, and the film does not outright say this, it was just conjecture on my own part.
Also, I am definitely not trying to ruin the movie for anyone--that scene is one of the best and most iconic horror scenes ever no matter how one chooses to interpret it. Same goes for the movie as a whole.
I thank you for your discourse.
But what if the blood scene is a red herring? Or a 'sacrifice' of sorts (as in a chess move, which we see Mac playing at the beginning).
Also, based on the logic of the scene, the thing defends itself from harm. So wouldn't cutting its finger alone be enough to cause some sort of reaction?
But, if Mac is indeed a thing, then it's possible none of what he says is true, adding further depth to his/it's elaborate ruse--I.e a chess sacrifice--misleading the enemy...
if the thing is one singular super-organism, that means only one piece of it really needs to live. And if it assimilates completely the organisms it encounters, including personality and intellect, then it kind of makes sense that Mac-version of the thing would foster paranoia in the rest of the crew to ensure its ultimate survival. Mac was already considered a leader, and was presumably quite intelligent.
On rewatching this movie last night, the idea just came to me. I'm not sure when he is assimilated, but it happens early on--before the tape-recorder scene (though I think he could have been infected in that scene by the torn up shirt...).
Watching the movie with this possibility in mind--which had never before occurred to me--puts the film in a totally different light.
I guess really I'm just praising the ambiguity of this film. Seen it multiple times and I'm still intrigued by new possibilities each time.
So...is the Bruce Willis character insane? I think it's possible. Perhaps he is suffering from the effects of a childhood trauma--that is, witnessing a murder. And so in his childhood mind he creates a fantasy to explain it all, which then leads into an adulthood pathology...
...what a wonderful world...
Missyrocks:
I agree with you in theory, but it depends on the age and maturity level of the students. I believe I was fifteen when I first saw this, and it didn't scar me or anything, I was just extremely fascinated by the film--I had never seen anything like it.
However, my fascination stemming from the drug scenes were not 100 percent positive. I still had that youthful mindset of 'that could never happen to me', which is dangerous. I almost wanted to try heroin (I was smoking weed and drinking then, and still managing to function). Thankfully I never tried heroin, but I had friends who did coke and popped pills.
When I rewatched this in my early twenties, the darkness of the film really settled in, and drugs really didn't seem cool anymore, or like a 'prove yourself' type challenge that it had seemed to my fifteen year old mind.
So maybe with a guide--a mature adult to help explain more in depth what is going on--and some editing of the more graphic sequences, this could be a helpful experience to some high schoolers, but maybe not in the actual classroom. Maybe as an extracurricular with written consent from the parents/guardians.
We all wish we were Leo.
This is a very interesting proposition. They are all really great films. How can one truly determine which is better than the others? Do we base our classification on scariness alone? Or do we take into account the quality of effects and overall filmmaking technique? Atmosphere? Mood? Etc.
No. Of course not. That would be too boring.
Luckily, we do not have to do that. We can just go along for the ride. Each of these films are excellent in their own particular ways, and there is really no need to rank them in any objective sense.
Agreed. And that same principle can be applied to other Scorcese films (the benefit of a re-watch, I mean). "Goodfellas" and "The Departed" come to mind. Also "Taxi Driver", depending on your mood.
And the first scene with Leslie Nielson:
"Are you a doctor?"
And he's got a stethoscope in his ears.
Classic!
I'm realizing now how much this movie spoofs other movies that were way before my time.
Them making out on the beach, like that one movie, but here they are both covered in seaweed.
Just so ridiculous.
I like to hope that he found some sort of peace in his life, and a bit of enlightenment before passing.
He definitely left us with an inspiring story, which gives positivity to our world. That is a noble accomplishment.
Maybe hubris is too strong a word. But he was quite bold to go off and live on his own, and believe that it would just work out, no matter how savvy or educated he was.
He even notes that happiness is only useful when shared with others, but he lived in a determined lonely fashion. He constantly sought out solitude.
I have a great deal of admiration for McCandless' journey and life story, but he wasn't perfect. None of us are. We all deal with hubris within ourselves at some point, especially when we are young.
Thanks for your reply.
McCandless truly did have a strong soul.
I haven't read the book yet, but I did a little research on google and Wikipedia regarding the book and McCandless' story before watching, which added a lot of perspective that helped me to better understand the movie, or at least become more immersed in it.
Thanks for your response, sorry for the delay.
I am only familiar with a few of Mann's films--Collateral and Public Enemies left the biggest impact. But I could combine what I've learned from those two and still only have learned half of what Heat taught.
Collateral seems like an unofficial sequel to Heat--another L.A. flick--which is also beautifully shot but much more streamlined in regards to pacing. A very different ride, but it still hits you in the gut every chance it gets; character driven but more thriller oriented.
Scenes that come to mind: the detective being shot as he exits the club--we have come to know this person and this is how he goes out...so brutal. The detective character embodies another L.A. Story, but Collateral continues to move on with different players.
Another scene: Cruise going to the hospital and seeing Foxx's mother, adding further dynamics to each character, keeping the story grey when it could very easily have been black and white.
As to the hope I referred to regarding Heat's conclusion: it was mostly the music/score which inspired this feeling, the music brings hope to a tragic scene. And then those wonderful twinkling lights in the distance sincerely adds to the vision and moment and each emotion they bring, but I must concede that the climax was truly a dismal one.
The hope is for tomorrow--for each of us. For the battle may be lost (or won) but the war rages on, unceasing, and we would wish a more hopeful future bestowed upon those who follow: our children, our brothers and sisters...yes, we have fought, but there is hope that the fighting will eventually end. I say 'might' quite deliberately, for it seems that human conflict never truly ends...but maybe there is a chance that it could.
This was most likely a fantasy sequence seen through Freddie's eyes, the only reality being amy Adams character looking at him with that glare and knowing. Freddie is obsessed with sex, so this is what he sees, naked women galivanting. Let's go a'roving!