MovieChat Forums > MichaelJPollock > Replies
MichaelJPollock's Replies
I think the film tells us "Joker" is an idea, a contagious nihilistic 'mind virus' that you can't identify one particular host with. I understand the psychopath at he end to be just another manifestation of it.
Really liked the film as well. One of the greatest surprises this year.
Kinda forced myself to watch it because I absolutely didn't care for the first one (and because a film that is uniformly hated as much as this one one release, before any sort of meaningful critical work has had time to be performed by intelligent viewers, is usually a sign that there's something interesting going on...).
Fantastic film.
The real question is: where the fuck is Nauls? He might still be alive, he might be a thing.
I believe T-1000 can only replicate complex shapes that he's been in contact with first, to gather information. It's actually made more explicit in some of the cut scenes (and in an audio commentary). That's why he only morphs into Sarah after he pierced her shoulder.
That being said, he DID have that brawl with the T-800 at the beginning.... and where did he get the Robert Patrick template ? Yeah, doesn't make much sense, but I personally don't find it to really matter. The film is so well shot and edited...
But yeah, 1984's The Terminator all the way otherwise. It's Cameron's masterpiece. Never made a greater film.
Do we read you correctly? You want a TV show about fucking, but with no vaginas involved. So a TV show about men buggering each other, yes?
"...Great movie btw."
Which one?
All three of course!
Been watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers Lately ?
He could be Vincent d'Onofrio's son... (had to check: he's not)
And the tall annoying neighbour, Jeff Bridges' well fed son (not either).
An opinion he uses his celebrity status to broadcast... Do you see politics telling casting directors what actors to pick in their films?
How does it compare to Lynne Littman's "Testament" made the year before?
Pretty bleak stuff as well... in a very restrained, not make up heavy way.
Thanks for asking.
I, in fact, do not. I find David Fincher's 'Alien³' to be a superior film to James Cameron's 'Aliens', just behind the first 'Alien' (altough appearing quite small in the rearview mirror...).
Yep. Good to have a civil discussion and disagreement from time to time... Thanks for that.
By the way: Orson Welles on 'homage' in films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg-qaeIcuyI
You're probably right. To be fair, it probably lifts more from Oscar Wilde's 'Picture of Dorian Gray' (there's even a literal huge portrait of herself that she stashes away, as well as her other self....).
I mean, all the stories have already been told, it's more the way they're being told. Which is why, personnaly, I never minded remakes and, as long as we're talking cinema, I'm less bothered by intentional or "accidental" similarities between pure plot elements than by a director copying the frame composition/edition/lighting, etc. (mise-en-scene: the purely cinematic elements of a film, so to speak...) of another. 'The Substance', if it wasn't a film, would be the Frankenstein monster (perhaps even so by design, one theme of the film being monstrousness...) because it's composed of bits and pieces of shots from other films that cinephiles over 40 will instantly recognise.
As for so called 'homages', I feel like if you're not already at least a little bit established as a remarkable director or have a at least one remarkable film under your belt and have demonstrated that you've brought your own style to the table, then basically who the fuck are you that we should be interested in what your cinematic references are or where you come from? It's like writing a memoir as your first book. So to me it's merely lazyness and piggy-backing on greater artists.
I understood the woman giving birth to the hybrid did so because she injected herself with the mysterious black goo introduced in Prometheus, that we're told is a potent mutagen that already lead to the creation of the first xenomorphs in the history of the saga's universe.
Undoubtedly. Also rips off several shots from The Shining, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr., as well as the adrenalin shot sequence from Pulp Fiction, a "reverse" Carrie at the end (everyone gets sprayed with blood except our "girl" onstage in her prom dress...). Find your own style.
>"and how he talks (not terribly intelligently)".
Indeed. He's one of my (if not my) favourite actor, at least until the late 90's, clearly a supremely talented and intelligent actor, but I was always surprised by how inarticulate and uninteresting he was as a person in almost every interview or public appearance (compared say, to a Pacino or a Nicholson, to cite a few major stars from the same generation) for most of his career.
He was never able to speak intelligently or provide any kind of valuable insight into anything related to his craft, which is fine -he's paid to act, not talk about it, and he was one if not the greatest actor of his generation. But Pacino, for example, who is at least DeNiro's equal in terms of greatness as an actor, was always so much more interesting to listen to in interviews...
I understand he has an autistic son and, I don't know if genetics is a factor at all there, he seems to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum himself, hence maybe his difficulty to articulate his thoughts on camera, as himself?
Whenever the topic of 'different kinds of intelligence' arises (artistic vs. emotional vs. procedural, mathematical, etc.), I always think of DeNiro.
>"You have fallen down the pit of moral relativism and it’s left you with no moral compass."
That may be, friend...
Do you reckon that'd be much worse than falling down the pit of passing judgment on people's moral character based on exactly 4 lines of text on a film forum?
(Note all of my posts were about John Doe, not about you as a person -of whom I know nothing...).
But I guess that's what I've always found frightening, friend: that the people who are all for torturing those "who deserve it" (and we can see you've given plenty of thought to it, your post describing very precisely what you'd like to do to Doe...) are often also the very same who are prompt to pass moral judgement based on appearances and never ever doubt (see the Holy Inquisiton, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other groups of funny funny people...).
You seem like somebody who is interested in the world of ideas. Two questions for you, friend:
- What would you say is the difference between justice and vengeance?
- Do you know what an 'ad hominem' is?
I'm sure John Doe thought his victims deserved it too.
Justice is not vengeance.
Not sure it would.... In fact it doesn't. Read the news: happens every day. Actually, the quote from Doe that perfecly fits our time is: "We tolerate it because it's common"
Then he wouldn't have been an embodiment of 'anger', but a full blown psycho like John Doe who feels justified in torturing people he feels deserve it.