MovieChat Forums > Seperatrix > Replies
Seperatrix's Replies
Now that's an interesting thought. That he touched the CD (I, like previous posters, assumed it was to build tension).
I have recently watched this film and now may have to do so again just to watch his fingers closely when he handles the disc!
I just finished watching it a short while ago.
I always get a chuckle somewhere during the film -- and it's not always in the same moment per viewing.
That means it's a great comedy in my book.
Indeed. I'd never heard Air I Breathe until I sat watching this film. Then I thought "that sounds like Creep."
On a side note . . . artists may try the approach U2 took with a recent single entitled Atomic City, where the chorus echoed Blondie's "Call Me" . . . so the band included Blondie in the royalties up front.
Sure saves a lot of time on a lawsuit later.
I never understood the writing for the Sheldon character in an episode that opened with Leonard, Penny & Sheldon watching How the Grinch Stole Christmas.
Sheldon is uncharacteristically praising the Grinch, who is a blatant thief.
To add insult to injury, the writers have Sheldon in the very next moment objecting to the "Frosty the Snowman" character exactly because he is a thief (i.e., wearing a stolen hat if I recall).
<shrug> whatever . . but very sloppy writing.
Perhaps there can be a "12 days of Christmas" assignment for 12 films.
So if there's TMP.
Let's add Eyes Wide Shut.
Now we need 10 more.
(and only atypical nominations please)
" . . . even if he really did say that, it doesn't matter . . . "
Disturbing.
This film came across to me as a Trojan horse to introduce the factual substance of religions copying off of one another through the ages.
The girl acolytes objections are lame and inconsequential, the "villian" makes substantial points, everything that happens thereafter is window dressing (the horror theme played out).
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?