MovieChat Forums > prayformojo
prayformojo (101)
Posts
Are you supposed to hate every single character in this film?
Few people understand this film
Doctor Sleep proves that Kubrick had the real magic
You have to be depressed to like it
Worst ending of all time?
The film should have ended on this scene...
What was Arno's story in this? (spoilers)
Joker did what "Logan" and Marvel didn't have the balls to do...
What was this actually about?
homo-erotic undertones of the film / meaning of the ending (spoilers)
View all posts >
Replies
You have it right, it's about creating a boxed-in feeling for the viewer. It's been done before by many other filmmakers when they want to convey a tight, claustrophobic space.
Since the entire film is essentially shot in one room, it's one of the most appropriate uses of the technique I've ever encountered, and it fits the film beautifully.
One of the worst mistakes that modern people make, due to their complete ignorance of history, is that they look at the people living in a place RIGHT NOW and assume that the same type of people must have lived there ALWAYS.
Of course such a thing could not be further from the truth. Humans migrate, empires expand, empires collapse. The middle east today is largely Arab because of the rapid and quite recent expansion of Islam throughout those territories. Prior to this, when Jesus was alive, completely different types of people lived there.
Turkey is a perfect example: today it is 99% Muslim. However it's also home to the worlds largest Christian Church (now a Mosque I think, but you get the point). It was once Christian, now it is Muslim. The Christians did not covert, they were expelled and exterminated.
While OP is 12 years ago and long gone, I found both lists here extremely interesting, as I think any list would be on the board for such an obscure and challenging film as "The Sacrifice" is. So here's mine in a chronological order cop-out. Maybe in 12 years there will be a couple more.
Harakiri (1962)
Contempt (1963)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
Once upon a Time in the West (1968)
Network (1976)
Apocalypse Now (Redux version) (1979)
Stalker (1979)
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Se7en (1995)
Whiplash (2014)
Well put. I don't think the film was trying to say that all British solidiers were like the main villain. It was trying to say these circumstances were ripe for creating or enabling pure sociopaths such as the main villain. I guess some people have trouble believing that such sociopaths existed in the past, which is odd because there is ample evidence in front of our eyes that such sociopaths are still with us today, in modern times.
I am as anti "woke" as they come and I didn't get that about this film. I feel it tried to be historically accurate and more or less succeeded. The general attitudes towards the aborigines <i>were</i> vile and depraved at the time.
The "strong independent wamen" acted like a clueless moron for the last act of the film, and was totally useless at battling men (which is/was accurate). A modern woke film would have turned her into a mary sue, rifling down every one in sight with dead accuracy. This did not happen. The film makes it clear she was lucky to survive.
There was also at least an attempt at balance in the film. It showed there were inhumanities done by both sides. It showed that not all the white people shared the same views.
Did some modern anachronisms and wokeness creep into this film here and there? Undoubtedly. But this was not your typical hollywood stuff, and for that reason I enjoyed the film.
I agree with OP, though I'm not sure if it's because the film has aged, or because I have. 17 years ago, I thought the music was sooo cool, the film was sooo edgy, Scarlett was sooo hot, etc.
Re-watching it now, it seems to have lost much of it's power on all fronts. Like much 'indie' and 'art-house' stuff, it was film of its time and place.
It actually is quite confusing... yes Dumbledore owned the Elder Wand (movies don't explain how) and it was buried with him. Snape killed Dumbledore and presumably took ownership of the Elder Wand, however since Draco Malfoy actually disarmed the wand from Dumbledore, the wand itself considered Draco its true owner even though Draco never held it. When Harry Potter disarmed a different wand from Draco, the Elder Wand somehow considered Harry Potter now the true owner, even though the wand was either still with Dumbledore's body or already stolen by Voldemort. Once he had the Elder Wand, Voldemort killed Snape thinking the wand would align with him, not knowing it was never truly Snape's (Snape knew all this and played along to protect Harry, one more heroic act for him). In the final battle with Harry Potter, the wand refused to kill its true owner, Harry Potter, and failed Voldemort leading to his defeat.
So Harry accidentally won by taking a random wand from Draco...
In a 2009 interview, Fincher said the budget is what derailed the project back in the ’90s:
“It was too expensive. Because if you’re going to make a Hollywood insider movie—it’s nothing to do with Hollywood really, it’s Hollywood in the late thirties, early forties—you’ve got to make it really cheaply. We had a chance to make the movie for, like, $13 million, back in 1998 and, um, [guiltily] I wanted to make it in black and white. [Laughs] And that fucked up all those home video and video sellthrough and cable deals"
He's been sitting on this script for ages. Nobody would make it because nobody thought they could make money on it (and they were right - a traditional theatrical release and this thing would have the worst bomb since "Heaven's Gate").
It's interesting how this will all play out, because Netflix will get a LOT more eyes on this than it otherwise would have, but in my mind that just means that many more disappointed people.
I thought it was dreadful. It wasn't just 'a bit' up it's own ass, it was entirely up there. As for funny, I think I mildly chuckled exactly once in the 2 hour running time. It's not a comedy. It's also not a mystery, nor really a drama. It talks endlessly about people I've never heard of and don't give a shit about. The single interesting character, Orson Welles, has about 5 minutes of screen time. The re-creation of 1930s hollywood was interesting and well done, that's about it.
This is: "David Fincher makes a movie from his dad's terrible script because he can, and f-you if you don't like it."
Once this thing hits netflix, expect the 'shit to hit the fan' from people expecting something even remotely resembling Fincher's popular work (Social Network, etc). Can't wait for the statistics (if they ever release them) of how many people start this on netflix but never finish. I'm betting 60%.
Yes, Stephen King is an idiot. I enjoyed his books as a teenager, and I find that this is about the right level of "mental development" required for his work. But I kept reading him on and off until I finally read the final books of the Dark Tower series, where he not only WROTE HIMSELF INTO THE FUCKING STORY, but ostensibly made the entire series of books ABOUT HIMSELF. I was like: holy shit, am I ever dumb for getting suckered by this shit. Never read anything else by him again and never will.
Doctor Sleep is about on the same level. If you are looking for the meaning of it all, it's probably about Stephen King himself on some metaphoric level.
View all replies >