MovieChat Forums > Wuchak > Replies
Wuchak's Replies
You nailed it, man.
Yeah, Chernobyl is actually no less than a hundred miles west of the Russian border.
Some have complained that James Marsden was wrong for the role of the protagonist since it (supposedly) called for someone of shorter stature, like Dustin Hoffman in the original, but I feel Marsden is an improvement as David. This is a totally civilized man of average stature (5'10") with an intellectual occupation who is forced to shed all his civilized conditioning and revert back to the barbarism of his ancestors.
Meanwhile Kate Bosworth is superior to Susan George IMHO because she’s more intelligent and less all-around annoying. Actually, every key character is superior to the 1971 movie because of quality casting. Alexander Skarsgård, for instance, is both more likable or respectable (initially) and intimidating as Charlie compared to Del Henney. And James Caan is simply more entertaining in the role originally played by Peter Vaughan.
There are also additional scenes that make it better than Peckinpah’s rendition, like the well-done confrontation in the church parking lot and David’s explanation of what ‘straw dogs’ means.
Early on in his career, he said he noticed fellow actors pacing on the sidelines memorizing their lines to a 't.' When it came time to shoot the scene, they had lost their edge. Brando learned to save his mojo for the only part that matters in acting -- what you do when the camera's rolling.
'Straw dogs' comes from what Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu wrote: "Heaven and Earth are not humane, and regard the people as straw dogs." To grasp this, straw dogs (chú gou in Chinese) were used as ceremonial objects for religious sacrifices in ancient China. So, figuratively, 'straw dogs' means anything discarded after use.
This is explained by David in the 2011 version at the 30-minute mark.
At the very least, he was upset about their dead cat (which they couldn't <i>prove</i> was done by the laborers) and those guys humiliating him on the hunt by abandoning him, not to mention Amy said they were leering at her. Add to this Amy's accusations that he was a coward.
But I don't believe he knew Amy was raped by them, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to the church social, at least not with the positive attitude he does. It's possible the thought flashed through his mind, but he immediately dismissed it.
It was a slow build-up to meek, civilized David finally taking a bold stand against his local persecutors when they threaten to break into his home. As they say, "a man's home is his castle." It was the final straw.
Everything about her -- the way she dressed, carried herself, whom she's married to and so on.
<blockquote>The only thing I couldn't understand about the film is how a man like David could end up with a woman like Amy in the first place - it seems absolutely impossible.</blockquote>
You'll see these types of relationships all the time: The brainy geek-ish guy who makes good money and the supposed "hottie" attracted to him. For instance, Sharon Tate had a thing for such guys. These kinds of couples are typical at the San Diego Comic-Con; I've met 'em and talked to 'em.
Also, you insinuate that Amy (Susan George) is this untouchable beautiful female, but she's actually barely above average in the movie. I'm not dissin' her, but I see more beautiful women practically every time I stop at the store or jog at the park.
Henry wasn't a murderer, since he <i>accidentally</i> killed Janice; and David (Hoffman) wasn't aware of what happened to Janice, neither were the crazed guys attacking his abode. The latter didn't know where Janice was and were just <i>assuming</i> Henry did something negative. So David was simply protecting a wounded mentally challenged man from a mob of violent locals who were trying to break into his abode.
I didn't say "talked about," I said "holds up," meaning holds up to scrutiny.
And, besides, what are we talking about here? The dubious writing, which isn't a good thing.
Thankfully, it has a great first act with "the circle" of three Affluent British thrill-seekers and the Aleister Crowley-like Lord Courtley, as well as the creative resurrection of Drac. And winsome Linda Hayden doesn't hurt.
It does if the creators want to make a quality movie that holds up for decades, which takes good writers.
sexual perversion
While documentarian Liam Le Guillou wisely leaves the mystery open at the end, he also doesn’t fail to point out what he thinks went down with the help of various experts and investigators, Russian and American. Certain popular theories, including the outlandish ones, are ruled out for one good reason or another, which leaves the most obvious scenario. While Liam doesn’t spell out his answer, the documentary insinuates it.
Beyond that, the film's worthwhile for learning about the nine victims, as well as the inaccessible region in general (Yekaterinburg being the closest city, which is 340 miles to the south; and the closest small town like 60 miles away).
So what is the "most obvious scenario" based on what the experts in this documentary conclude?
They claim the nine hikers were murdered. According to this theory, the murderers did something to terrify the sleeping hikers, which made them flee their tents without proper attire. The assailants knew they'd soon die of hypothermia in the freezing cold of night with nowhere to find sanctuary in that desolate region. This explains those who froze to death. A few others were able to make it to the woods and start a fire. Since Plan A didn't work with these, the assailants resorted to Plan B, using blunt force trauma to kill them, whether a club or stomping on them, whatever.
Who did this? The film subtly suggests a band of primitive Khanty (<url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanty</url>). The more peaceable Mansi said there was a savage group of them living in the area, who wouldn't likely take kindly to Soviet invaders to their homeland, especially if the hikers inadvertently marred one of their sacred shrines, which were observed here and there in the deep woods (in the documentary).
So, according to this film, it wasn't an avalanche, it wasn't a government test weapon, it wasn't extraterrestrials and it wasn't the Alma (Yeti). The hikers were murdered by assailants forcing them to die of hypothermia in the freezing cold or using blunt force trauma in the few cases which that didn't work.
While this theory is interesting, there wasn't any evidence at the scene of these supposed assailants, like footprints. The better theory is that 3 feet of shifting snow during the snowstorm suddenly fell on the tent at night, which panicked the nine inhabitants. Fearful of an actual avalanche, they cut themselves out of the tent and fled without proper attire. When they realized an avalanche wasn't going to happen, some tried to make it back to the tent but died of hypothermia in the -13 degrees Fahrenheit weather (it was no doubt difficult to find the camp in those conditions). What happened to the others is well explained in this 11-minute documentary: <url>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5kGWKG0R6c</url> (jump to 7:33 to skip the recap of the entire incident).
The case remains unsolved, of course; that's just the most plausible explanation.
Sometimes the line between supernatural and science fiction is thin. For me, the other-dimensional explanation didn’t take away from the mysteriousness and haunting ambiance of the proceedings, which were augmented by the unnerving score and the outstanding skeletal-insectoid alien sequence of the original version. Sure, the tone awkwardly changes with the quick tie-everything-together happy ending, but that's expected with Disney. Meanwhile winsome Lynn-Holly Johnson shines as the protagonist and carries the film, despite inexplicable criticisms, and Bette Davis is superlative as the curmudgeonly crone; not to mention, Carroll Baker as the mother.
I'm not saying it's great, but it worked enough for me to give it a solid grade of B.
Did you see the version with the skeletal-insectoid alien as the Watcher in the climax? Without that great 'payoff,' the movie ends in an unsatisfying way (speaking as one who has seen both versions).
<blockquote>other possibilities . . . demons don't exist and neither do Mothmen.</blockquote>
In <b>the world of this particular movie</b> they <i>do</i> exist since the dark creature is plainly shown right before Mary's car crash. And nothing in the rest of the film suggests that it was a hallucination or whatever.
Arguing whether or not they exist <b>in real life</b> is a separate topic.
Inspired by or homage to, one or the other.
Grand Canyon
The Big Chill
Wild Wild West
The rottweiler was owned and trained by the priest (since Mary wouldn't be able to own one in the asylum). I suspect he was the biological father of the twin girls and took Mary's side in the eventual split of the two daughters. He was angry at Julia for forsaking her family, as observed in his sermon. Being a Roman priest and therefore sworn to celibacy, he had to hide the fact that he was their true father, but the duplicity drove him mad, apparently.
Another reason he was on crazy Mary's side, is because Julia's dream at the beginning suggests that <i>she</i> was the one who permanently disfigured Mary's face when they were kids to get back at her for being an abusive "master" (remember, she described her relationship with Mary as that of slave and master respectively). Mary was subsequently taken to the institution and Julia blocked out that she disfigured her face in a rage. So, when Father James (the girls' literal father) meets Julia at the hospital to finally see Mary after like fifteen years, he lies to her about why her face is disfigured.