MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
As someone growing up with old movie stars of the 50's/60's, Pattinson is to me one of the few unique charismatic actors out there in the vein of James Dean or Marlon Brando, he has a lot of potential that needs to be tapped into. It is very possible that the more he ages the more appeal and presence on screen he creates.
I have to mention that in my view James Bond became a phenomenon in the 60's exactly because it reflected a sexual revolution, that was a different time, and when I speak about Bond here I refer more to Connery's and Moore's Bond (as I also haven't seen any since Moonraker). That's why I wonder how much this aspect of a womanizer is relatable at this time for people? Especially a slightly younger generation. Is he really a perfect flawless ideal of a man?
What is punishment for? A revenge? What is that for, when it doesn't heal the wounds as much as the forgiveness does? I know many rape victims who would prefer such people to change rather than punished, why? Because the hate begets hate, we become them. What is that for? Is that a progress? Creating more and more of what we don't want? Perpetuating a cycle. If there is a choice for a complete change of the person, we choose basically a revenge? An act that at the end usually damages the psyche of that vengeful person anyway? This is a perfect example (when given a fictional choice of such change) how revenge would be all about us, we would just wish to create more pain that was created before. This is a hilarious cycle, people are so blind. But I understand, love is harder than hate and fear, it's much easier to hurt than love for some people.
It is not going to happen during your lifetime, most humans need meat to live and survive, the great majority, not just because of different bodies with various conditions not allowing being vegan, but also most climates on Earth, Africa, too Northern or Southern areas on Earth, and so forth. And I am raw vegan mind you, but I'm not ignorant of a great picture, many vegans are blind to, you don't need to pay attention to them. Abortion is the same, most women have more freedom than before to make great changes.
I dont see much difference between these two films in terms of how serious and real they are, the only difference is that 1st one is more of a downer while the 3rd is more uplifting, are you a troll yourself? You think people are such a brainwashed sheep to think the same? My God.
Well Stallone said the same, why wouldn't he, to anyone who knew anything about that war knows how real it was. All other films had a made up conflict that was not real, it was a fantasy in that way. But you got your own opinions.
Aother thing is, context does matter greatly in my view, it does not matter how much blood we see, there are films for children with more blood than Temple, yet they're PG, it's about the context, are people really that desentized that they just focus on graphic violence as the main indicator? There does not have to be any blood, yet the film can be rated R, Halloween has no blood, and is R. Rambo II is not Star Wars, because it is not as light hearted family film with cute creatures. Completely different films. And Rambo II may seem cartoony, but really is not a cartoon, it sells violence in a dangerous way to an impressionable mind, by disobeying orders and using violence on our own initiative for instance. The film plays with violence in a dangerous way for this reason. In Temple violence is done in an innocent way, good vs evil.
Clearly Rambo III is more real, IV too to a lesser extent, because that's what was happening, people were imprisoned for even owning that film back then. The previous two are fantasy, which is quite obvious to anyone I guess. The way how III is done is very traumatizing and real. It doesn't matter how you see it, many people used to see it the same way, especially those of us who lived under similar circumstances in the middle east. That's why it was so relatable back then. And again, Rambo II is a war film, that's enough for MPAA, even today. It would never be PG13.
Not to most people, there are no jokes, no comedy, some people are desentized to violence they may see it differently, the more impressionable people do not. I used to have nightmares from Rambo III, which is obviously more real and frightening than the first film.
It is the way how the films are done, Indy film is told in a jokey way, light hearted tone, whereas Rambo is a pure horror. Nothing light hearted, merely uplifting at the end, slightly. Indy is a family film, Rambo not even close, even though it is sold that way, almost.
Because obviously it is far better made film as a whole. Imdb, movie sites and ratings and critics are not indicators of how more regular people relate to this film than the first film, which admittedly was not such a good film in the sense of "pure cinema" in the first place. One film is uplifting, the other one is a downer, average human beings like to be uplifted by life, by art, by aything, thats why the most popular films are always in some way full of uplifting emotions.
Rambo is 100 times more violent because of the context, that's how ratings and violence is measured by MPAA, Indy is a children film, just like Tom & Jerry or any animation where you got devils ripping people apart, etc.. It is about context, Rambo is a bloody serious film, because of the real world scenario, that sells to children only because of its heroics, the same like all other Rambo films, but the content is tapping into deep emotions related to real war. Indy is an adventurous fantasy, Rambo is a political war film using only a narrative of a comic book film on the surface, what is underneath counts here. And some of us more emotional and impressionable can feel how deep this film is. Just because it has a gloss doesn't mean that there's nothing underneath.
Well we can imagine, but really none of them are portrayed openly as such, my point is to present it on screen, but only just as part of their character development, not making a big deal out of it. When we watch films we take so many things about characters for granted, almost predictable things, I love when something not usual is presented on film and it's done very subtly, just a small mention and it's gone, without making the whole freaking film just about it. The trick is that watching films like that helps these people feel like being more included in the society, without feeling and being seen like outsiders.
As far as I know living in Europe back then, Suzie Quatro was far more popular in Europe than Patti Smith who was practically unknown, or too underground figure, at least in Slavic countries under the Soviet regime.
Most people I know do, the real friends who are not afraid to hurt someone's ego in order to help their spirit, fake friends don't do that.
OP's post was ironically the most loving on this thread helping women, how, to look at their mirror when they put men into one group just like that. Most of the time what appears to be like an insult is actually a kindness, a help for self reflection. That is why I prefer friends who are willing to punch me or insult me in order to help me. Only a self victimzed person can turn things into negativity, because a truly positive man always sees positive things in everything, that's the nature of grace.
Maybe because human body is part of her acting, actors play with their body, especially in this film. Acting is to be convincing, everything is part of it. I completely understand the point of this thread why she might be a bad actress for this film for some people. It just shows a certain message the movie creates, in 20 years from now perhaps Wonder Woman is going to have more muscle definition. These things are extremely important, they reflect the society, how we perceive the power, etc. Nowadays it reflects sexism, perceiving things for how attractive they are, instead of how believable they are, it reveals beautifully the obvious psychology of society, that sexism exists in those who fight against it the most = where attention goes the energy goes. James Cameron kind of mentioned this a bit recently too. So easily they could have found a less physically appealing woman, but they chose a model, all these decisions, it is all part of the message supporting sexism, from the filmmakers' view sometimes unintentional, because as the saying goes, what we fight is what we become. When we look into the past, many action heroes or superheroes were not always so attractive, that includes men, actually plain looking, almost ugly in many eyes, but it was not as important, people realized that the body language was part of their acting by being convincing.
There's 100's upon 100's of films bashed or favored based on politics, the perception of the quality as a whole is then skewed subconsciously, We all like what we like because of the subject matter somehow, which can also be political then, if critics can not relate to it, most things around it become irrelevant because they are reflections of that very subject matter, acting, editing, visuals, etc. The whole vision of the film becomes non-relatable to those who can not connect with the core of the film itself. We all are biased, no one can be fully objective, we all have subjective experiences or views. A propaganda movie like Schindler's List runs people's emotions because of politics, a certain agenda, the perception of the quality of the whole film is influenced by then, in many cases unconsciously it seems, when I hear an argument that politics should be ignored, which can be a self denial, if the politics becomes a worldview of a filmmaker itself, the entire film is based on it. A film like Million Dolar Baby would not work without that worldview some people share with the filmmaker. However it is possible to relate to anything by employing a more holistic perception though, but irony is that anytime any film that gets bashed almost universally automatically does not mean the film is bad, it means the wrong kind of people are watching it and reviewing it, it was never meant for them. When it happens to be critics, while seeing that regular people having the opposite appreciation in almost the same kind of numbers, it means that certain profession here is unabalanced, lacking greater amount of diversity of people working there, what remains is an agenda, the kind of people who stand only on one side, which creates a huge disconnection from the reality and all people. That is what people are seeing also in politics, media, showbiz, all these organizations seem to have been employing the same kind of people, the same ideology, thus then creating a greater division, and people are waking up to it.