MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
The Usual Suspects - Kevin's character is making up anything he sees, mostly from the bulletin board behind the cop, and he is the main boss, has no disability, and escapes scott free.
Fight Club - Tyler Durden is just a hallucination/psychosis/split persona 'created' by Narrator. They both live in the same body.
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back - Darth Vader is Luke's Vather. I mean, Father. (If the name doesn't already spoil it..)
In the Line of Duty IV - The other cop is corrupt, and is the villain behind the whole scheme and kidnapping of the nice guy's mom.
The Sixth Sense - Bruce's character is a ghost himself, his body died a long time ago.
Planes, Trains and Automobiles - Del's wife is dead and Del himself is homeless.
Fletch - Stanwyck is actually planning to kill Fletch and burn his body, (same bone structure) so he can fake his own death this way and escape to Rio.
If you have friggin' DECADES to watch a movie, it's your OWN fault for not doing your homework and WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE before going to some movie board and then whining that someone spoiled it for you. You can't expect others to bend to YOUR will an circumstances, logically, people would WANT to at some point discuss a movie FREELY, without some pretentious snob trying to restrict their freedom based on a ludicrous point about eternity of non-spoiling.
I can understand spoiler warnings for a month or so, but a decade or more - you are INSANE if you expect people to just FOREVER hold their thoughts in... they HAVE to come out sooner or later.
I wouldn't go to a new movie's line and do what Homer Simpson did (not that that reveal spoils the movie AT ALL, since you can fully enjoy the movie regardless of that knowledge), but if some high-horse elitist expects me to shut up about some movie after 10 years of its release, they can freely choose to NOT come to movie boards to read posts about the movie.
In other words, OP and anyone like the OP can just !@%#* off and stay out
So why would shooting a bullet be smaller a miracle than folding a paper a couple of times and throwing it? Do they not also throw a net and see it fly in the air? Do they never throw anything else?
It's SO contradictory, so much more than what people usually write even here, that I can't take anything in this movie seriously.
The other reasons the movie doesn't quite work, besides all the nonsensical non-logic, plot holes, contradictory and fluctuating technology that has never even SEEN congruency..
01) It takes half an eternity to get to any kind of interesting point. Some boring yammering back and forth and wandering in a boring desert. Yaawwwnn.
02) The story is overly simple - as others have mentioned, there's barely any story at all. A man gets captured, then he escapes, is chased and blah happens and movie ends with the predictable twist. How is this even a story?
03) When a movie relies almost solely on a big twist, everything else gets discarded that could be in its way. All hints we would normally get are diminished artificially, the ape tech level just does whatever the scene requires it to be able to do. Primitive village, but brain surgery is possible. Mud huts, but designer armor and tamed horses. Guns, hoses, all kinds of 'normal tech', but yet paper airplane is a miracle. How does anyone even think any of this could be remotely believable?
04) Its message is very thin, it doesn't say anything new, unique, interesting or even poignant. Since the existence of nuclear weapons can't be proven either way, and all - and I mean ALL! - 'proof' of them is highly dubious and flawed (noticeable with closer inspection), the message being something like 'let's not nuke the planet' is not particularly inspiring or interesting.
05) What genre is this? It doesn't work as a mystery, thriller or a sci-fi movie. It doesn't work as a horror movie, either. The final twist is not enough of a payoff to wade through the rest of the predictable shlock.
Hard to say, but I would intuitively say, no.
If he was killed, it wasn't just because of one movie, but his ongoing and progressing, perhaps growing inclination to tell people the truth, although 'he knows he can't', so plans for removing such a conduit for exposing the power elite must have been created a long time ago, so in a way, it was possibly just a matter of time.
Kubrick tried to tell people the truth about Apollo 11, Gemini and all that stuff as well with altering King's 'The Shining' (which is why King hated that movie so much - it didn't follow the book that well, because Kubrick had to destroy King's story to tell the truth about Apollo - I already explained this in another post, so I won't do it again here, but just watch 'Kubrick's Odyssey' and tell me it's all a coincidence). Heck, Kubrick even put a traffic accident that killed King's book's car to showcase that he can't follow the book's story faithfully, because he has to tell the world what NASA was scheming.
Of course people's eyes were widely shut, so no one saw this. It's cringy watching youtubers react to this movie.. no matter how many of them see the Apollo 11-shirt, the 'A11 work and no play', the indian rocket-looking art and so on, none of them understand, see or catch what Kubrick is trying to say.
So he had to make another movie, being more DIRECT this time, being more open and LITERAL about the truth. And yet, he knew people wouldn't see it, hence the name.. their eyes just remain widely shut. Eyes wide open would mean you can't be fooled anymore, you can see the truth (the ending of 'Fight Club' has a similar phrase), so eyes wide shut means the opposite, you're just another fool that doesn't understand what you are watching..
There are still people saying this is pure fiction and has as much to do with 'secret societies' (or the power elite) as Star Wars is all about robot oil change or whatnot (a ridiculous, wannabe-clever non-argument to shame anyone daring to open eyes).
They are not necessarily daft, but it's so hard to defend something like this being pure fiction, they HAVE to resort to childish 'clever' quips so the posters would feel ashamed instead of bringing some kind of rational response that doesn't hold water.
I never heard that the title is a masonic term.. but I think this movie is Kubrick trying to, YET AGAIN, tell people the truth, but people have their eyes so widely shut, they simply WON'T see it as anything as 'weird fiction'.
It's like he predicted the end result of people watching this movie... how is that a masonic term, though? Masons are all about ONE eye, not the plural version.. but I probably don't know every single secret of that cult structure as of yet, so I'd be glad to hear more.
The thing is, once you realize what the name means, and that this is not purely fiction... that should give you SOME kind of chill that's more poignant and better than any fiction-based 'suspense'.
Why would you want to be suspended anyway, instead of being shown the truth and reality of this bizarro-world..?
If it was just orgy, I don't think you'd get any particular reaction. An orgy is a very normal thing in porn, people see it every day.
It's EXACTLY the other aspects, that when combined with a primal, animalistic lust like sexual desire and then having an AIM to satisfy such carnal, bodily thing with such secrecy and seriousness, the juxtaposition is terrifying.
It's not about 'free love' of the hippies era, it's not some dirty teenagers gathering in a tent to rub all over everyone.
It's SYSTEMATIC, and it has to do with POWER plus SECRECY, it's basically ESOTERIC, instead of organic and natural.
It's not the sex, it's not the orgies, it's the other stuff - not to mention that it is one of those movies that SHOWS YOU THE TRUTH, and how bizarre and disturbing it actually is in this world.
In a similar fashion, 'Yes, Minister' and its not-as-good sequel, 'Yes, Prime Minister' shows you a BELIEVABLE (or unbelievable) reality that's not 100% accurate or truthful, but gives you an idea of just how weird the truth actually is, and DARES to go surprisingly close to how it's actually done.
I think THAT is why it's creepy instead of just another orgy.
I have several thoughts on this, but let's start with this one..
"I suppose at the time they made this movie, having Tom Cruise have sex with Nicole Kidman proved he wasn't Gay since they were married to one another back then and share a daughter"
How would that prove anything? You suppose a lot. Why couldn't gay men have sex with women and have daughters? They have, throughout history, they do and they will. There are plenty of gay men with daughters, so there goes your theory.
However, why would 'gayness' have anything to do with anything, and why would some rich, crazy (look at his Scientology-themed interviews more than his stunts) celebrity care whether someone thinks he's gay? Almost regardless whether he actually is or not..
Also, 'gay' is (and was even back then, just to a smaller extent) CELEBRATED in the world! You see that rainbow-colored flag every darn where, from corporate logos to commenter avatars to public events and so on and so forth. It's not a shameful thing to be in this world, so why would he hide it, and try to convince people he's not, whether it's true or not?
He does have this 'macho' image, but that's a little bit deserved, I think. He loves riding motorcycles, running, keeps having enormous stamina at his age, doesn't seem to properly age any more than Keanu Reeves and so on. He has pretty strong onscreen charisma as well.
Of course this doesn't preclude anything, but it might explain the motive for such. However, I don't think you can 'prove' that kind of thing one way or another to a large audience just by marrying someone or being in some movie.
In any case, I think the REAL reason was because he can pull off a difficult role like this, he is a high-profile celebrity, so he has most likely BEEN to this kind of 'behind the veil' ritual stuff, so he fits better than some bright-eyed newbie that hasn't seen this kind of stuff yet.
He's also a crazy scientologist, so he can probably be persuaded to act in this stuff easily..
Symbolic? The Shining was more symbolic about Apollo 11 and Gemini and all that.
This movie almost directly SCREAMS at you, LOOK at what's going on in the world, don't you care? And yet, Kubrick named it 'Eyes Wide Shut', because he knew people wouldn't see, because their eyes are shut very tightly, and globally (as widely as possible) as to what the 'power elite' are doing.
So yeah, it's not symbolic, it's pretty close to being literal, direct and openly showing people how things work, and they still don't get it - - exactly as predicted by the title!
Exactly.
This planet is a mess, and no matter how many times and ways someone tries to tell you the truth, your eyes keep being widely shut. You simply WON'T see the truth, not if it's told in a subtle way with big hints (The Shining), and not when t's literally shown almost exactly how it is (this movie).
Your eyes are wide shut.. you not only don't get the point, but you WON'T get the point.
That's the point.
Fun? What's that?
Some kind of side effect of something?
When learning is fun, you learn more efficiently, almost effortlessly. When I learned Japanese, not ONE second of that was boring or repulsive. It was all JOY, it was enjoyable to learn - every single word was a treasure to me, because it was so much fun to learn it.
I never knew languages could be so much fun, I never associated fun with studying things.
This is one of the biggest balls school has dropped. Why is all fun removed, why are schools such sterile, facility and institution-like, boring, colorless places?
It almost seems that fun is REMOVED from schools deliberately. As soon as you are having fun in any kind of way, some teacher will tell you to spit the gum out or stop doodling, because you are supposed to be taking notes, or or or.. you know the drill, probably all too well.
Why is it such a carrot and stick-system, instead of just having the reward be the FUN of learning? The topic itself doesn't even matter as much as how much fun it is to learn if you are excited to learn it, if you are having fun with the learning method, if you are allowed to express your own, possibly quirky individuality, if you are allowed to be yourself and utilize that to learn!
Instead, you have to FORCIBLY FIT into a pre-determined mold, and if you don't, you are punished. You HAVE to learn by memorization, there's no other way allowed.
You HAVE to 'show your work', even if you always arrive at the correct result without knowing how to 'properly do the work'. It's insane, in real life, RESULT is all that matters, not HOW you got that result! In real life, you NEVER have to 'show your work', you only need to know the correct answer! (I am thinking math, but I am sure it applies elsewhere as well)
What a waste it is to put energetic, creative, full-of-life-and-energy-type people to sit inside a boring facility 8 hours a day for years and years, when everything in them screams to do otherwise.
I did VERY well in school in topics I actually liked and cared about, but as soon as there was a forced 'midochondria is the powerhouse of the cell' (and this time, I don't care if I misspelled it, because what the heck kind of crap is THAT to teach some teenager that has energy, drive and raging hormones to go explore the world and live out their lives and enjoy and create??), I naturally rebelled against it and my mind wanted to jump out the window just to escape the excruciating boredom of the topic and the teaching method of that topic.
Taking notes? I NEVER read even one letter of my own notes, although I took a lot of them just because there was nothing else to do. Of course I scribbled and drew more than I ever took notes, and I almost never did my homework (though this, believe it or not, was not intentional, I just somehow every time kept pushing it off until it was too late or I forgot. I MEANT to do it, and felt very guilty about it, but somehow, it just never got done, except some rare occasions, fo course).
How the heck would anyone learn by listening to some idiot drone on about irrelevant crap, and then taking notes and memorizing something for a test? Is this the best they could come up with?
Think about the marvellous plethora of learning methods you can use - when I leaned Japanese, I used all kinds of methods, I didn't limit myself to just memorization, for crying out loud. When I was learning to read kana, I used Street View to roam around in Japanese cities to try to read their signs. It was 'real-life' stuff, and your brain knows the difference between a boring textbook and real-life knowledge, so it's immediately more interesting.
Why are schools relying so heavily on the MOST BORING way of 'learning' ever invented?
Schools don't understand humanity, humans, or people AT ALL, and this COULD very well be intentional - which means, that someone understands it all too well, so all creativity and fun has to be suppressed.
You have to learn all the life skills all by yourself.
Many people have made great videos about this stuff, but I don't think anyone has written a 'comprehensive list' of all the things wrong with school system.
The idea of a school is great, but it shouldn't be a 'mandatory' thing (and it REALLY isn't, but it's too hard to try to explain, and too long a story - if you know about 'Freeman on the Land', then you know).
It also shouldn't be based on physical age, but mental and spiritual maturity. Some people are not READY to learn some things at the same age as others, and yet others might be able to learn that stuff even earlier. So for the advanced people, it's boring, and for the not-yet-ready, it's just traumatic and terrifying.
I don't also understand, why everything is timed. You have a test? Only one chance to get it right, and it's timed, so if you have to use the toilet or something, you are screwed. What kind of fresh hell is that?
Think how people learn in the real world - they can use search engines to research things, watch videos, try out things by themselves. If all these other, NON-MEMORIZATION-based, ACTUAL learning methods were allowed in schools, what would it hurt, but the teachers' authority, perhaps? Why can't I just go to a forest to learn about nature and trees, why do I have to sit inside and read it from some boring textbook, written by someone neither knows nor cares, and has put their own opinionated agenda into it?
Why can't I choose my own learning method, maybe I want to rather watch an Oversimplified video and then some other youtube videos and play a video game about some historical topic, instead of simply reading the same text excerpts everyone else does, and then memorize that bit for some test, so I can get a 'score number', instead of actually learning and knowing it?
The other alarming thing that I NOW realize is.. where's the fun? It's INCREDIBLY fun to learn, if you are excited and care about the topic!
School systems still teach useless things NO ONE ever needs in their daily life, ESPECIALLY modern daily life.
A streamer that makes good money from their career, isn't going to need to know the capital of every single gosh-darned country in the world, let alone their economic histories. What the heck, schools?
A yoga teacher would be much better off knowing about how the governments and corporations work together to screw people over, how they use legalese and the legal system to make people do things they wouldn't, if they knew what they were doing when signing 'applications' and 'registrations'.
It's like school doesn't want to ACTUALLY inform people, because then people could make informed decisions and see all the evil that's being pushed to control people. They want obedient workers, not intelligent, independent thinkers and observers of the world and society.
The end product is not a better, more creative, more inspired, more excited, more energetic and more capable and able human being, the end product is a depressed, confused, not-prepared, anxiety-ridden, caffeine-addicted mess that wants the sweet release of alcohol and drugs so they have something to look forward to every weekend.
The end product SHOULD be better and more spiritually and creatively expansive humanity, that finds solutions to the awful problems of war, poverty, greed, corruption and corporate fascism, but instead, we get social justice warriors that have been indoctrinated with all the things that bring humanity down and turns people into little moloch-worshipping demonoids.
The school system should, in ANY case, not be about sitting inside a boring, ugly facility building 8 hours a day, yearning to roam free in the forests while looking out the window, when the 'teacher' drones on about some really idiotic detail about irrelevant crap you will never need to know in real life.
They don't teach relationships, they don't teach money, they don't teach what you NEED.
"Davis most likely phones in his ideas to his staff from the golf course or his own private island."
Impossible.
He hasn't had IDEAS since early 1980s.
I don't know what he phones in, but they certainly aren't ideas.
I struggled between 'he phones WHAT, now?' and this kind of reply. Sometimes I DO wish I was a cat.. Schrödinger's cat, that is.
It's not particularly good Garfield, though.
The best for me are the comics from 1978 to about 1982, plus the ONE good 'special' - I love the Garfield actor's voice in that one, although the story isn't particularly interesting. It still has some charm, some soul and some kind of heart as well, plus, it's adequately animated.
Instead of just 'wacky and crazy' (though it somewhat is that, too), it ends on a more somber family feeling, where even Odie gets some kind of love and respect. There's no compassion in modern things, only very calculated moments.
It's like they let AI write everything now - someone praised the 'cute' moments when Garfield is shown as a kitten, but that's not cute. That's 'calculated cute', which means that it wasn't organically made into something cute, it was very specifically made by very specific 'cuteness' rules to be as appealing to women and children as possible.
Make the eyes big. No, bigger. Even bigger! That's right. Now, make them look sad and do a 'cutesy movement' with his paws and a cute meaowing and purring sound.
That's about it. Your 'cuteness' was entirely calculated and manufactured, it was not created (there is a difference). It's manipulation by paint-by-numbers type artificial cuteness, it's 'forced cute' if anything, not anything ACTUALLY cute.
But unwashed masses never understand the difference, so they are easily manipulated by this crap. Hence, the Emoji movie..
OK, I saw a bit more of the trailers, I noticed it's inconsistent - sometimes they DO have the black outline around the eyes, but other times, they do NOT.
Why? It's almost even worse to SOMETIMES have it, proving they could've had it all the time... but for some reason, don't. Would it have been THAT hard to make the eyes separated by a black line..? I just can't get over that.
This show literally proved how important Michael Scott, and thus Steven Carell, is for the watching experience. Remove him and everything falls apart.
It's like without Michael Scott as the center sun, the planets don't know where to orbit anymore.
Michael generates so many things that make other things happen, that when you remove him as the center, almost centrifugal force, things just become chaotic and weird, and not in a good way.
For the record (does anyone even use those anymore?), Michael Scott is the only reason I watch this show anymore. I always skip straight to him and only watch his parts, everythign else is just boring and irrelevant compared to what he does and says.
I know some won't agree with me, but try to do that in reverse and watch only parts he's NOT in, and see if you still disagree..
I mean, consider someone like Creed or even Dwight, which have weird quirks that make them partially unpredictable and thus more interesting, but especially if we consider someone like Michael Scott, which has LAYERS of interest, why would anyone want to watch YET ANOTHER run-of-the-mill 'romance of a simp and a princess, which never happens in real life' (Pam would never have fallen for someone that simpy and awkward)?
If you can watch Michael do his unpredictable thing, point out the flaws in our social behaviour, the so-called 'society', the world, the corporate world, the system and so on, in his innocent, charming way you forgive, because you know he never does anything out of malice, no matter how shocking the thing he says or does ends up being, and so on..
If you can watch Michael break all the taboos and maim the sacred cows of human interaction in the superficial american social culture, while still retaining some sort of coherence and hilarious, childlike reactions and responses.. I mean, who didn't laugh when they realized Michael is trying to solve his financial crisis by running into the train tracks and becoming a boxcar hobo, then proceeding to carefully jump onto a boxcar that was actually not going anywhere?
Why would you watch this awkward 'romance' instead of that, unless you are hungry for that sort of stuff (and how CAN you be in a world where even ever gosh-darned comedy has some injected romance, from Spaceballs to Liar, Liar to Top Secret!.. you can't find movies that don't, no matter what the theme)?
7) The Ricky version of The Office at least had some kind of relatability to that stuff, and the alpha there actually looks and feels like a real alpha. We have all seen that type of alpha as the boyfriend of some girl nerds pine for. Jim isn't relatable, Roy isn't alpha enough and Pam.. well, she just looks weird to me, not anyone I have ever seen in real life, whereas the UK version's receptionist at least looks like someone.
I have a few things to say about this stuff..
1) It's your typical injected romance that no story seems to be able to be told without, for SOME reason. There are a handful, and even women have loved those, so I don't see a problem with at least sometimes telling a story that has NO ROMANCE, but this world, especially its females (and males are always forced to agree with females) force every movie and TV show to have romance.
As someone once mentioned, it's like adding square dancing to every story, whether the story organically supports it or not. It makes no sense, it's really weird and ruins many stories that could be way more interesting without it. I can only think of a few movies that don't have injected romance - Stand By Me (ironically romantic name!), Bad Taste (no female characters, though female actors), First Blood (they had to ruin this in the sequel), ... I think there are about five I know, but can't remember the rest right now.
2) It's supposed to be YET another 'modern interpretation' of your stupid Romeo and Juliet-theme, even if watered down considerably in many ways.
3) It's obviously trying to recreate the injected romance in the original The Office, where it's more awkward, the characters are not as obnoxious, but also, the hag in the original represents your.. let's say, 'typical british interpretation of beauty', and leave it at that (I am in a kind mood today)
4) I never found either actor good-looking, they're average at best (look at young Brad Pitt or some asian idols or air hostesses)
5) Pam is a manipulative B, and Jim is a simping moron, so in a way, they deserve each other (realistically, Pam will cheat with someone more alpha at some point, that's what she chose to begin with, although Roy's actor doesn't quite have the required charisma or thug-confidence)
6) This 'couple' and their 'will they or will they not'-stuff might be super exciting to female brain, but they are VERY boring characters compared to many others.