MovieChat Forums > gp12345us > Replies
gp12345us's Replies
This just makes me like and respect John Carpenter even more than I already did!
I saw it in the theater when it was released and I loved it then. I watch it every Xmas season and love it even more now. This movie is an atmospheric masterpiece.
It's called the movie having "atmosphere", and this movie had a lot of it, I loved it.
Just a bunch of drunk frat boys being jerks, that's all I ever thought of it.
I know the scene you are talking about well. This is just my interpretation, but I don't think Leland was really planning to hit Cooper. I think they were just trying to drive the point home about how crazy and unpredictable Leland acts when possessed by Bob.
Sorry you don't like the legendary eighth episode from season three. I think it is just a masterpiece of pure Lynch cinema that can be watched on its own apart from the series. I mean, we get to journey inside the mushroom cloud of a nuclear bomb, where else can you do that?
According to this article Lynch will not see the new version of Dune, since anything Dune related brings up unpleasant memories for him.
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/david-lynch-zero-interest-villeneuve-dune-1202225984/
I think what they mean is major story points from Halloween II, like finding out Laurie is Michael's sister, can be disregarded in the current Halloween timeline. Showing Annie dead on the stretcher is just reminding us of what happened in the original movie. I would think the reason they used that footage is because is shows Brackett's reaction to his daughters death, and he is in Halloween Kills.
When Halloween (2018) was released, they stated it was a direct sequel to the original, and everything that happened in all the sequels could be disregarded. So in the current Halloween universe, the only movies that count are Halloween (1978), Halloween (2018), and Halloween Kills.
I agree, there were several times they showed real, known objects and I guess were passing off the footage as a UFO? Very disingenuous. They also spent way too much time on the Phoenix Lights, which any objective viewer can see that they were flares, nothing more.
<blockquote>How did he get them down there?</blockquote>
It was not shown so it requires suspension of disbelief. I can buy that that a 13 year old kid managed to get his family to the hole using a wheelbarrow, but dropping them down that hole would have resulted in severe injuries.
<blockquote>Was that poop they were playfully smearing on their faces? (like they had psychologically broken to that point?)</blockquote>
Pretty sure that was just mud. An earlier scene shows John throw a bag down into the hole, splashing them with mud, so it was established there was mud in the hole.
<blockquote>
What was the deal with the mother/daughter in the meta-plot? The main plot of the film was a story the mother told her kid.
Then wtf was the abandonment scene about?
and what is the implication of the girl walking in the woods near the hole?</blockquote>
The entire mother/daughter sub plot seems to be open to interpretation. The dialogue between them in their first scene does not make sense. For example, the mother out of the blue mentions pajamas, a banana, and calls her daughter a liar for no reason. I really have no idea what it's supposed to mean with regards to the main plot of the movie.
I read a theory that it's supposed to be in the future, and the mother is actually John's older sister as an adult, telling this cautionary tale to her daughter. The timing doesn't work out though, since she tells her daughter that her mother had her when she was 15, and in the main plot it is established that John's mother is 50, with two teenage children.
So in the end I would say a lot of this movie is open to interpretation, one of the reasons I liked it.
Tough decision, he is in so many great movies. For me it would be a tie between "Groundhog Day" and "Lost in Translation".
1 - Steven Spielberg - gave us both Close Encounters and Jaws, enough said
2 - Ridley Scott
3 - James Cameron
4 - Robert Zemeckis
This is just the movie being faithful to the book written by H.G. Wells in 1897, which ended the same way.
Haga Naga!
Not sure if that counts as a line, but it's my favorite.
Wiley Wiggins who played Mitch wasn't an actor. Linklater saw him walking around Austin and thought he looked good for the part. With that in mind, I think he did a great job.
There is an explanation given a little earlier in the movie, when the military commander is talking to Lacombe (Francois Truffaut). He says they used a gas called EZ4, which comes out of riot control. To quote him: "They'll wake up in 6 hours with a hell of a headache!". So the implication is that none of the animals or people were killed, including the bird that Roy and Jillian had to warn them of the gas.
Thanks, really interesting article and it answered my question about how they did that incredible tracking shot!
Wow, you took one of the greatest comedies of all time way too seriously......
Well, the movie was promoted as kind of a horror version of "Home Alone", so I thought basically the kids and the babysitter were gonna fight off home invaders using "Home Alone" style traps, like the paint can on a rope. It turns out the paint can was used, just not in the way I thought!
So what direction did you think the movie was going until the twist was revealed? Like you I thought I had it figured out at the beginning, then when we find out what's really going on, I was pretty much stunned. I love this movie mainly because I've never seen anything quite like it. When I first sat down to watch it I thought it was gonna be a run-of-the-mill home invasion flick, wow was I wrong!