MovieChat Forums > PhoenixVanguard > Replies
PhoenixVanguard's Replies
Sheriff Loomis: "Road blocks won't stop something that can't be stopped."
Remember when Seth injured himself in bed by getting that piece of metal stuck in his back? This is the beginning not only of his psychological change, but also of his physical change. Immediately afterwards he has a revelation about "the flesh" which leads to him transporting himself and the fly, merging their DNA.
As injuries heal, the body repairs the cells according to instructions in the DNA, but since Seth's DNA has now been merged with the fly's, his body is creating cells based on those merged instructions. This is why the first signs of Seth's transformation take the form of insect hairs growing out of the wound on his back. In essence, this injury, and the body's natural response to repair it, became the catalyst for a genetic transformation that eventually took over his entire body.
This process is much like William Birkin's transformation into the G-Monster in Resident Evil 2. Birkin receives critical gunshot wounds to his arm and chest before injecting himself with the G-Virus, which not only repairs these injuries, but also replaces the injured cells with those of the monster. This is why Birkin has a large mutated claw for an arm and an eyeball growing out of his chest in his first form. With each encounter you have with him in the game, you injure him even more, and as his injuries heal, the transformation becomes more complete to the point where he devolves from a biped to a quadruped, and finally to a massive blob of teeth and tentacles. In effect, the protagonist's attempts to defeat it served only to trigger the next stage in its mutation.
I'm also going to separate them into groups of equal quality.
1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Jackie Brown
Tarantino's earlier work had a much more serious tone, with the humour being darker and more subtle. Great films.
4. Kill Bill 1 & 2
5. The Hateful Eight
6. Django Unchained
Tarantino's genre influences became more pronounced, which unfortunately made his films more cartoon-like and comedic. These films are still great, but I find them to be a very silly as well, especially with the people screaming as buckets of blood fly.
7. Death Proof
8. Inglourious Basterds
9. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
I honestly do not like these films very much, despite watching the first two several times. They're not all bad: Death Proof does contain one of the best car chase scenes of all time; Inglourious Basterds has one of the greatest opening scenes of all time; and I did enjoy Di Caprio's scenes in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood where he was acting in the TV show. Overall tough, I find these films to be boring, aimless, and tiresome to sit through.
I must admit to an active dislike of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, which even lacked Tarantino's trademark dialogue. I doubt the film will grow on me, as I gave Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds enough chances but came away with the same impression. I'm not sure if I could muster the energy to sit through the entire thing again.
<b>Assault On Precinct 13 [1976]</b> Over the course of a single night, police and convicts must band together to survive an attack by a fanatical street gang on a blood oath to fight to the death.
<b>Day Of The Dead [1985]</b> After a zombie outbreak takes over the known world, conflict brews in an underground bunker where surviving members of the military and science divisions struggle to work together.
<b>Invasion Of The Body Snatchers [1978]</b> An alien spore begins to take over Earth by creating replicas of people devoid of human emotion.
<b>The Hitcher [1986]</b> A cat and mouse chase develops between a man driving through the desert and a hitchhiker he picks up along the way, who turns out to be on a killing spree murdering those who give him a lift.
<b>No Country For Old Men [2007]</b> A man finds a suitcase full of drug money and takes off with it, only to be pursued by a determined hitman trying to kill him and retrieve the money.
<b>Taxi Driver [1976]</b> A lonely taxi driver working night shifts in New York City becomes increasingly detached from society, as the sickness he sees in the world around him fuels violent urges that threaten to explode.
<b>The Thing [1982]</b> In an isolated Antarctic research station, paranoia and distrust grips a group of men when they realise that one or more of them may be a shape shifting alien that mimics its prey.
<b>The Void [2017]</b> A group of people are trapped in an isolated hospital, trying to survive the crazy cult members outside and the strange otherworldly creatures inside.
Sorcerer [1977]. I also really like him in Jaws [1975] and 52 Pick-Up [1986].
The Running Man.
As a fan of the first two movies, I don't recall ever wanting another sequel.
I hear you. I always find there tends to be this uneasy period after the US engages in a war, where the media in general seem reluctant to talk about their actions, let alone cast a critical eye over them. It usually takes about 5 or 10 years for a film company to work up the guts to make a film about the war, and even then they try to focus on the US soldiers somehow being a victim in the whole affair.
I notice that with a lot of films about the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975, but didn't see many films released until 5 or 10 years later. Of course, you had The Deer Hunter released in 1978, but that didn't focus at all on the politics of the war, and instead placed the focus on these poor American soldiers who were never the same, setting the trend for this aggressor-victim mentality.
Green Zone was one of the few films I can remember that addressed the mistakes made by the American government, in that case with regard to WMDs in Iraq. However, it did take 7 years after the Iraq War for it to come out. Considering Rambo 4 was released in 2008, I assume film companies would have found it to be "too soon" to make a film which was critical of the US involvement in Afghanistan. I'm not justifying it, in fact I'm quite critical of it, but it's just a reflection of the US being more incline to produce propaganda that portrays them as "the good guys".
There was no "mistake" in Rambo 3. The US was supporting the Majahideen in their war against the USSR. Even Ronald Reagan, the US president at the time, called the Mujahideen freedom fighters who "are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability".
Reagan also went on to declare March 21st "Afghanistan Day" which "will serve to recall ... the principles involved when a people struggles for the freedom to determine its own future, the right to be free of foreign interference and the right to practice religion according to the dictates of conscience". This was the official position of the US during the Soviet-Afghan war from 1979 to 1989. They were supporting the Mujahideen with funding, training, and weapons.
What you call a "mistake" is just a reflection of changing politics over time, and the desire of the US to manoeuvre itself into a position to gain power and control over foreign countries. Keep in mind that the US also supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, providing him with chemical weapons, only to invade in 1991 and again in 2003, for the stated reason of Iraq possessing chemical weapons.
If anyone made a mistake, it was the US government. Unfortunately, the US government, and the US population in general, have an acute case of historical amnesia, preferring to forget the past and always act like their fighting for the good of mankind.
I think has a very good chance of being good. The last one was great and didn't shy away from showing the violent consequences of using a .50 calibre machine gun on a man. Furthermore, this one is directed by Adrian Grunberg, who directed a great film called Get The Gringo starring Mel Gibson (which is set in a Mexican prison), and also acted as First Assistant Director on Apocalypto (another great film).
During one of their training programs, Morpheus emphasizes that anyone in the Matrix can be taken over by an agent, so they really don't have much of a choice. The agents don't have bodies of their own and need to jack into the bodies of other people to act within the matrix. Even when Trinity takes out an agent on the rooftop, it was actually a real person that she was killing.
Those security guards needed to be taken out. The agents use police and security as reinforcements because it gives them extra bodies to jack into; they're like extra lives in a video game and give them the opportunity to be almost everywhere at once. This is why Agent Smith mentions to the lieutenant in the opening scene that they were given specific orders that they were needed for protection. They just wanted extra bodies to take over if needed.
I live in Newcastle. I'm curious as to what you did when you came here?
Brian Dennehy is great in First Blood, which is probably one of my favourite movies, but despite really liking him as an actor, I must admit I haven't seen him in very many films. For some reason, he never really got a lot of big roles in big movies, which is a shame. I agree that his performance in To Catch A Killer is great, especially the scene where he goes into the police station off his face and furious.
For me, it's a toss up between Glengarry Glen Ross and The China Syndrome.
Admittedly, I haven't seen most of his films and have some catching up to do. He's a great actor.
Amity Island Horror.
That's the trick most non-Australians don't understand. You only need a little bit of Vegemite with a lot of butter or margarine.
I haven't read the book, so I can't say for certain, but the idea of a moving city reminds me a lot of the video game Final Fantasy VIII. In FFVIII, Balamb garden (which is kind of like a military school) floats out of its foundations and moves across the land in order to avoid an enemy missile attack that was targeting its location.
Considering that the story in Mortal Engines is set in a post-apocalyptic future, and the fact that the story line involves the discovery of an ancient weapon, I'd say it's likely the moving cities were a method societies used to avoid nuclear attacks from their enemies. If the rest of the major cities were taken out by nuclear attacks, it would be the mobile cities that would stand a chance of avoiding such an attack.
It also reminds me of Metal Gear Solid, where Metal Gear was designed as a mobile nuclear launch platform that would negate the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Furthermore, it also has elements of Mad Max, where it is the most mobile who are able to avoid attacks from scavengers that roam the wasteland.
Nightrider saw himself as being fearless, even going so far as to call himself a "fuel injected suicide machine". When Max put him to the test by playing chicken with him, Nightrider got scared at the last moment and swerved out of the way. This revealed that despite all his talk, Nightrider was actually afraid to die. Being confronted with this, and the idea that his opponent had more resolve than he did, Nightrider was broken mentally.
I don't agree with the other poster who believes that Nightrider knew who Max was. Max was just another cop to him, which is why Nightrider and the other members of Toecutter's gang call him bronze, which is the colour of their badges.
This is one of the greatest opening scenes of all time, but I think it takes place too early in the narrative, as it doesn't make sense why Max would do something so risky at this point. Of course, the death of the Nightrider is the inciting incident that starts the events in the story, but as far as the character of Max is concerned, it would have made more sense if this had happened after Goose died, and especially after his wife and child were killed. It also highlights another problem I have with this movie which is that the rest of the film is not up to the level of intensity of this opening scene.
When I used to watch this as a kid, I always thought it should have had a sequel. However, since then I have become much more educated in the art of storytelling, which makes it interesting when I go back and watch old favourites I haven't seen in years. The last time I watched Innerspace (a few years back), I realized it not only didn't need a sequel, but it really shouldn't have one. This has a lot to do with the characters and their arc through the story.
At its heart, the story involves Jack, played by Martin Short, being a timid guy unable to deal with life's problems, while Tuck, played by Dennis Quaid, is a more confident person who fearlessly dives into any situation. Tuck being injected into Jack leads to much of the inner conflict Jack goes through, as he is forced into situations which tests his timid persona. With Tuck's influence on his life, Jack becomes more confident throughout the story, which we see on full display when he drives after Tuck and Lydia.
By the end of the story, and with Tuck's help, Jack has completed his transformation from being timid and afraid to confident and fearless. As a result, we don't need to see what happens next. We already know that Jack now has the confidence not only to rescue Tuck and Lydia, but also take on any of the challenges in his life that he, up until now, has had trouble overcoming.
One reason why people idolize hitmen is because of the way hitmen are portrayed in film and video games. They are depicted as being cool, calm, collected, and having everything planned out perfectly. Furthermore, the targets they are assigned are more often than not "bad" people who "deserve" to be killed. Unfortunately, this is also one of the biggest problems with the genre, and with most films and video games in general that involve killing.
Writers will often try their best to justify the actions of the protagonist to the point where the audience, or the player, will agree that the protagonist is "right" in killing his targets. John Wick is a perfect example of this, especially in the first film which is a revenge film at heart. The revenge genre is structured around creating a justification for the protagonist to kill a bunch of people without the audience feeling guilty for enjoying it.
This is a big problem I have with the Hitman series of video games, where Agent 47 always happens to be given a target that is an all-round bad guy that deserves to die; it's ridiculous. It's rare that you will get a hitman that kills people for money, regardless of the morality of the situation, and even then, they are mostly villains, such as Vincent in Collateral.
A good example of a protagonist that bucks this trend is the 2009 Hong Kong film Accident, where the protagonist kills his targets in such a way to make them appear like an accident, and not a targeted killing. Even though he is still cool, calm and collected, having everything planned out perfectly, the targets he is paid to kill are often just people whose death will net his employers a profit.