MovieChat Forums > Seperatrix > Replies
Seperatrix's Replies
I can't think of any better than this.
Yes I would agree that the scene with Portman/Owen was the highlight of the film for sure.
And I don't mean to nitpick, but the dialogue just comes off a little too on point upon repeated viewings (and I have seen the film several times over the years, I initially enjoyed it so much that I added it to my library).
Still think it's a solid film from front to back and the acting is supurb, but given the cast I'd expect nothing less.
I didn't find it so realistic. People in the real world lie. The people in this film do not. They are brutally honest to whom they're speaking, to the point of relishing in the cruelty of what they are saying.
Typically people who cheat will resort to denial as the first line of defense.
The characters in this film appear all too eager to do the wrong thing just so they can pronounce it to the world.
Lastly, I found the dialogue very much like a play. Then lo and behold I found out the film was indeed adapted from a play.
Well done and a good film make no mistake, but I found the dialogue a bit stilted for my taste, at least in parts.
Well, I have to admit, that all does sound very quaint indeed.
Even fun.
No, I was listing the films in the order of release.
My point to the original poster was that to say TP: FWWM was one of his "top 8 Lynch films" almost includes ALL the Lynch films ever made!
"And why does some of these filmmakers who try too hard to be interesting always bring up David Lynch."
There can be a strange way that people generalize things at times.
Whenever I mention a Lynch film I like, people will usually respond with "oh then you'd like {fill-in-the-movie-blank} because it's a weird film too."
Which is nonsensical. But that's what's happened to me many times over the years.
Now from the filmmakers perspective, perhaps they generalize the same way in the sense that any film that is different from the mainstream (like most of Lynch's work) places them in the same category if they make a non-mainstream film.
Which may or may or may not be the case.
Just taking a stab at it.
" . . . this notion of manipulating victims souls plays outside the cosmology of Judeo-Christian religion and Satan's ability to control humanity's fate"
Why introduce your theology into a work of fiction? Angel Heart doesn't have to stick to the rules of the many religions and the many different takes on Satan is and how he operates.
"You do not get drunk when you are looking after a minor. PERIOD."
He wasn't a legal guardian of any kind. He eventually took Daniel under his wing to help him learn Karate and compete, true, but is that any different from a high school football coach?
"What's weird is he gives Daniel alcohol as well, destroying the trust the audience has placed in the seemingly wholesome stranger."
Nah. He was drunk out of his mind and did what most people do when drunk: offer someone else a drink to be social.
"He then starts to hallucinate about world war II and his wife dying before passing out, blind drunk."
Yes, blink drunk. Which explains his actions. If anything, it might have been a life lesson learned for Daniel on the perils of drinking too much alcohol.
"The whole scene is super cringe."
Everyone reacts to a scene in their own way and you're entitled to that. The scene deepened their relationship in that Daniel learned more about his teacher, and friend, and set up a touching moment later in the film. A moment that deffinitely was not cringe.
indeed.
My response was to one particular poster who appeared to transcend the world of film and make declarative statements about reality.
And as far as that goes, it's also a possibility they (demons/Mothmen) do not exist -- in response to that particular poster.
If demons really do exist I would suggest they have a poor sense of recreation.
I just watched The Wicker Man (1973) for the first time last night and saw elements lifted (copied) for Midsommar throughout. It didn't diminish either film. But was surprised for whatever reason.
Was Midsommar a homage to TWM I wonder? What else could it be?
How do you know demons exist?
And how do you know that Mothman (or "Mothmen") is a lie promulgated by demons?
Or aliens?
How would one know this to be true?
"the Mothmen are demons and enjoy playing with their victims"
Or . . . other possibilities . . . demons don't exist and neither do Mothmen.
Someone else posted a link that claims to have debunked the entire affair.
Here's the quote I found most interesting:
"What the local sheriff believes is that someone, probably Walton, put a lit balloon into the forest. Then he disappeared for several days of misery so he could get a good payday. There were no ketones in his system to show that he’d been out of food for days, which occurs 100% of the time during fasting. That’s what has happened because Travis wrote a book that got turned into a movie. He speaks at UFO events throughout the year."
The thing about the ketones (if true) would seem to be a clue. But true believers can always explain their way around that. I dunno.
I'm open minded but skeptical. In this particular case I've heard repeatedly the argument that "none of the men have changed their story over the years so that's evidence that the story is true."
Personally that doesn't impress me. Let's assume they decided to spin a tall tale. Why would they change the story over time? Sure, if they had a falling out maybe. But aside from that, I don't see any compelling reason for them to fess up.
Seems like the longer they stuck with the story the harder it would be to be truthful at this point. Not to say they aren't being truthful. But I can't say I believe the story while at the same time am open minded about it all.
So Carolyn (Annette Benning's character) was told by her lover how shooting a gun was a great stress reliever and was recommended to try it. Which she did.
And loved.
That's the only set up we have for the (in my opinion unrealistic) tease we briefly get at the end that she might decide to shoot Lester.
So yes, Carolyn did presumably have a gun in the house, hidden, or perhaps kept in her car as a new gun owner.
Yeah . . celebrities like Brett Favre, Elon Musk, Victoria Jackson, Kelsey Grammer, Zachary Levi, Kanye, Dennis/Randy Quaid, Rob Schneider, Roseanne Barr, Kid Rock, James Woods, Hulk Hogan, 50 cent, Lil Wayne, Jon Voight, Scott Baio, etc.
Oops, wait a minute . . .
Given the nature of his character I'd guess he ran home, curled up in bed, hoping no one would connect him to what went down with his brother.
So I watched this one again the other evening (completely forgetting this conversation so I didn't pay strict attention to this scene in particular) and had a new thought: Why didn't Andy just wear a disguise and go with his brother to the scene to make sure it was done right?
Andy should have known what a mess his brother was and couldn't be trusted. It was an idiotic scheme to begin with, but one could imagine certain people in complete desperation attempting something like this. But that's all the more reason for Andy to tag along.
Anyway, back to the discussion about the car. Is it possible that the help gets picked up and dropped off? At least on occasion? That would explain why seeing the car wouldn't phase Hank (if he was paying attention to begin with).
I've never forced myself to endure that one. Then again, I'm not into musicals at all.
I wish I could participate. But your request overloads my brain. There are so many films I want to remove from existence the mind reels.
If one surfaces above all the rest I'll return and modify this response.