Just keep in mind, that should it end on an unsatisfying note, the book is divided in a similar way, and it’s not a shameless set-up for a sequel, it’s just fitting as close to half the book as possible into 2.5 hours which is still an achievement. I feel like they didn’t let people know that enough. Didn’t even bother to put a “Part One” in there.
But yeah. If you like sci fi, it’s pretty good. One of the better true science fiction films in recent times, IMO.
I’m cool with that. I’m just afraid the plot would be too convoluted without any pre-knowledge of the source material since someone like David Lynch decided to take it on in the past. And the Denis Villeneuve movies I’ve watched are either great(Sicario) or laughable crap(Arrival, the Blade Runner sequel) IMHO so I wanna be sure it doesn’t suck before I invest my time watching it. I trust your judgement lol.
If nothing else, enjoy the visuals. Sci fi movies are VERY subjective, but there’s no denying how great this movie looks.
Edit:
Also, Hans Zimmer scored it.
Dune was such an awesome book.
But this was the first book series where I full on ran into a brick wall and could not finish the series; God Emperor of Dune, indescribably impossible to trudge through the sludgery.
Alicia Witt was discovered by David Lynch and acted in the 1984 movie (never seen it). I’ve watched all her Hallmark Christmas movies though…don’t hate me…
Well, I confess I almost watched the David Lynch one since the chick from Candyman was in it but I had already watched some of his terrible shit like Lost Highway and decided it wasn’t worth it to subject myself to anymore potential torture. I “settled” for The Prophecy and it was fucking GREAT for a B movie LMAO.
I love the book and really like the first movie. It’s the only David Lynch film I can really stand. I thought it was a great attempt to be as true to the book as you could be in a couple of hours. Really looking forward to seeing the new movie.
Case in point, haha
The second I saw they made a movie about carnage pg-13 was the second I tuned out
Back in the day PG-13 served as an adequate ground between pg-13 and R. G was considered for kids, PG was considered to be appropriate for either children or adolescents depending on the movie, PG-13 meant the film crossed boundaries and you wouldn’t want to take your kid to it (like the original Red Dawn, Weird science, just one of the guys and the wraith). I was actually shocked as to how the wraith was pg-13 back in the day, the film would be considered a fairly hard R if re released today.
Anyhow… America sets the trends, and standards for motion pictures are incredibly puritanical. So G = for infants and toddlers, PG = for kids, PG-13 = probably for kids, but check first and R = appropriate for adolescents or adults. You don’t see absolutely shocking films like “the last house on the left” or even "american pie’’ routinely getting released in theatres anymore. You have the new era of “woke” sex comedies that forcefully push a ham fisted agenda, shutting down any questions in the process.
The character “carnage” (Cletus) is a psychopathic serial killer. In the comics he
And more… The character didn’t care if he was killing a man, woman or child. And somehow we thought this was a good idea to make into a movie aimed at kids?
Firstly… They’re going to need to substantislly tone down the content… Which they did
But they also have to neuter the backstory too, the original villan is far to dark to be integrated into the child friendly MCU. It’s not just the CGI, they’re fucking up the story…
That’s Carnage? Let me tell you what one of Carnage’s motivations was in the movie:
He just wanted to be Tom Hardy’s friend. I mean that’s literally what he says before he dies.
Fuck, I actually thought they were trolling the audience for a moment.
They did deliver the pushing the grandmother down the stairs backstory but it was told in exposition and cartoon drawings.
Fuck, I think I’m just gonna go back to watching videos of breakdowns of movie plots on YouTube. They’re much more interesting than the actual movies. The only (unexpectedly) really good movie I’ve seen this year was Shang Chi: The Legend of Tony Leung’s Uncanny Ability to Make People Mistake Natural Charisma for Acting Skills. Shit, I caught 10mins of a shitty bootlegged version of it on a TV app, turned it off and then went to watch in the cinema.
And hey, I fucking love Tony Leung and I’ll bet anyone here any fucking amount of money I’ve seen at least 5 times as many of his movies as you so don’t give me shit. I’m just telling it like it is. I think he’s vastly overrated as an actor. The only 2 movies where he really displayed great acting chops were Bullet in the Head and Happy Together and I’m also gonna bet that 99% of you have never heard of the latter. It was about 2 gay dudes. Ring any bells? Didn’t think so. But go catch it anyway especially if you wanna see some fucking masterful cinematography from Christopher Doyle. Every single fucking frame was a work of art you could hang on your wall.
What’s thiiis? A thread for talking about movies?
I’d like to point out, niche films like kids exist to start a conversation. Kids serves as a social commentary, it realistically captured what it meant to be a teenager in New York pre Rudy Giuliani times. The headline for the poster to the film was “a wake up call to the rest of the world”.
The world isn’t sunshine, butterflies and rainbows. There are those who are pushed into a lifestyle filled to the brim with hedonism, degeneracy, violence. It represents the opposite of the straight and narrow, the crowd for which ambitions, futures and dreams will never eventuate.
A film like kids exists to say “look at how horrible this is! This is happening” whilst simultaneously spreading awareness of AIDS at the time. It also serves to deconstruct the teen genre and portray a far darker, realistic depiction of gang culture, youth degeneracy and the consequences associated with this behaviour relative to other teen films like clueless being released at the time.
Also… A few points @BrickHead
The girl who was coerced was younger than 14… She was 13… And it wasn’t coercion, it was sexual assault. There was no saying “no, I don’t want to” in the situation. Though there is another scene in the movie wherein one character does rape a girl. It is long, drawn out and extremely sickening.
As to the man who had the skateboard cracked over his head, I believe he WAS actually beaten to death as it is later quasi referenced the man may have died from his injuries.
You’ve spoken of the increased prevalence of adult orientated content within society. When we talk media/films in cinemas the opposite trend appears to be eventuating to a degree.
Films that made it to theatres in the 70’s-early 2000’s were frequently far nastier relative to contemporary releases nowadays.
A film like kids, bully or Gummo, all of which were NC-17 upon release would never make it to theatres today. On the odd occasion they do, it’s typically one or two independent theatres at a heavily restricted midnight showing.
It’s rare you find films like these making it to circuit or even video on demand anymore. “Torture porn” (horror film subgenre), new French extremity (another horror film subgenre), Giallo films and sex comedies like American pie are becoming a thing of the past… we can thank wokism for that. That being said, it does appear as if every second character on TV nowdays is gay, transexual, bisexual or pansexual. It’s hilarious, and it’s also a byproduct of wokism.
I understand the prospect of diversity quotas, but keep it realistic. You’re making 2-3% of the population AT MOST look like 40-50% of the population. It’s not going to turn anyone gay, but I do roll my eyes now whenever a series makes a series of huge character arcs centred around half of the cast coming out.
Censors have become far more squeamish, nowadays films with content like American Pie or Hostel are going to be quickly slapped with an NC-17 rating without massive cuts and thus won’t make it to circuit as releasing an NC-17 film today is box office suicide. I believe the avengers even had to be cut to avoid an R rating… It may be easier for a child to access a laptop and watch whatever they want, but "hard R’’ rated films aren’t as nasty as they used to be. When was the last time a film like hostel made it to circuit?
As to films getting the point across without graphic content. Censorship in the 1930’s-1960’s was due to the Hays code. William Hays was a crusader of sorts. A puritan through and through who loved shoving his morals down the throats of others. Prior to this, films were getting nastier. I recall one old film from the 1910s (or before) wherein a character has their eye slit open with a razor blade. You see everything on screen and it looks extremely realistic… That’s because it was, in fact, real. They took an animal and cut the eye of the animal right open. The film was quite a success because (suprise) people want to see shocking content onscreen. There is a degree of morbid curiosity within most.
However there is a line of which when crossed will repulse most moviegoers to the point wherein the movie will be ruined. A film like kids crosses that line for most, however the film is intended to shock, provoke and disgust. It’s not meant to be an easy watch…
Some films require graphic content to get the point across. Imagine saving Private Ryan without the opening scene, or black hawk down without graphic violence, boogie nights without any nudity, the panic in needle park or Requiem for a dream without on screen drug use or graphic portrayal of the consequences associated with that lifestyle … It just doesn’t work. Actually the panic in needle park was released in two versions. An R rated version with graphic, uncomfortable, up-close depictions of heroin use and the consequences associated with addiction… And a toned down PG version. I can’t for the life of me figure out why they decided to do this as the themes/content within both variations of the film is geared towards adults.
The film is about a girl who falls in love with a heroin addict, she becomes involved with the scene and starts using… Everything does downhill from there. However this also plays into what I said before “censorship is heavier now”. The PG variation of the film still showcases heroin use and adult themes, rather the coarse language and the brunt of the on screen sexual content was cut out. Why would a kid want to watch this film? What’s the point of toning this film down? It blunts the impact it has and by all means neuters the point the film is trying to convey.
The Hays code was passed in the absence of a rating system to classify films. All films were required to meet a set of standards that would equate a given film wouldn’t be particularly unsuitable for anyone in the audience to be watching. The thing is… What constitutes as acceptable vs unacceptable to be watching substantially differs between an adult and a child. If you disagree with me, I challenge you to convince me otherwise.
I see no reason as to why an adult needs to be held to the same standards relative to a child or young adolescent in terms of what is or isn’t okay for them to be watching. Kids is a very disturbing film, but the content within the film has apt context behind it. It’s not disgusting for the sake of being disgusting (think the human centipede), it’s disgusting for a reason. If an adult doesn’t want to watch it, they don’t have to. The film is NC-17… The saw franchise, Hostel films, Martyrs, the human centipede etc weren’t even rated NC-17, that alone coupled with the plot of the film should be enough of a warning to those with a weak stomach “stay away”. Though hostel wouldn’t pass with an R if released today…
Kids however is a bad example when we refer to cencorship. Kids represents the worst of the worst and actually was cut in quite a few countries to secure a 17-18+ rating… And it was banned in the Phillipines. It is a film that probably wouldn’t even be released today… You’d probably find it’d be banned in Aus, NZ, the UK and a few other countries were it to be reclassified.
Sorry, I can’t resist having a discussion when movies are brought up in a topic lol.
Well, I can’t tell you guys about my more absurd dating escapades but here’s something that made no fucking sense to me and I hope that others may have the advantage of more insight that I don’t from viewing this from a first person perspective:
Some chick was giving me hints that she wanted to get together in Pre-U. I didn’t have any interest in her. One evening she calls me from a hospital and says she almost got hit by a car but didn’t suffer anything more than a graze on her wrist but I only found out the latter when I reached the hospital. Then she said she wanted to stay over at my place. I said, “No”, hailed a cab and told her to go home.
The next day, from the way her fucking friends behaved towards me, I guessed she must have told them I did something to her sexually or some shit like that, which I didn’t. I’ve done A LOT of fucking but not I did not even touch this one other her eliciting a hug in a fully lit and crowded A&E department while saying, “You know what I thought of when I thought I was gonna die? YOU”. That’s a FUCKING GIGANTIC RED FLAG in my book. Like a fucking Godzilla vs Kong sized warning sign.
One of her friends who was in a group with me for a project even requested/ purposefully BROADCAST in front of the whole class that she doesn’t want to be part of a team with someone whom she “was afraid of”. I have no idea what was in her (the crazy chick’s) head nor do I have any explanation for her actions other than the chick was crazy. And she left the school on that same day and I never saw her again.
Just like that. Called me to the hospital, got rejected, left school.
EDIT:
Oh, and this didn’t involve me but it sure made me almost literally roll on the floor laughing:
I have a strictly platonic female friend whom I’ve known since university. During a weekend stay at a resort, we decided to play a game which I think was “truth or dare”. I can’t remember who asked her a question nor do I remember the question asked but she opted for “truth”.
She said (and I totally believe that she believed what I’m going to write next because she doesn’t bullshit about things like this in the 20+ years I’ve known her) that she had an ex-boyfriend who courted her by claiming that he had some kind of brain tumor and needed an operation to remove it which would erase his memory and he “didn’t want to because he would forget her”. So, what happened was they did a lot of fucking before this “operation” and then one day he just ceased contact when she called him and he CLAIMED he didn’t remember who she was.
ALL the guys there naturally laughed our collective asses off and a couple of us spent weeks begging her to introduce him to us so we could kneel before him and shake his hand and tell him, “YOU ARE A GOD AMONGST INSECTS!”.
@Mod_Phoenix @Mod_Starr I think you guys transplanted the wrong posts (this one and @unreal24278 's reply below) lol. Everything I wrote in this one really happened and it’s all about dating or similar.
When I was around 14 my brother’s friend had a GF. The relationship was rocky and the girl didn’t really like him.
JUST before they broke up, the friend tried to kiss her and she made the excuse “I’m allergic to kissing”… And my brother’s friend actually believed this. In the past they’d made out in movie theatres…
From the dating thread. I’ve deleted my post there:
There are different styles of filmmaking and people express things in different ways. The rape scene in Irreversible was almost like the director literally yelling loudly to the audience that “this shit is fucked up and it happens more often than you think but you’re not taking it seriously enough”.
EDIT:
I read the wiki plot for M. Aside from it being a different genre - one that’s supposed to be a thriller or something similar meant to entertain a mass audience - which wouldn’t require depicting the acts with full graphic detail even if this was allowed during that era. And I think it has had a significant of an impact on films that make the audience root for the bad guys - the criminals in this instance. I’ve never watched anything by Fritz Lang but now I think I know why movies like Howard Hawk’s original Scarface started depicting criminals as anti-heroes or sympathetic characters.
The director allows the killer to give a monologue at the end. The first thing that came to mind was Tony Montana’s “say goodnight to the bad guy” scene in the Scarface remake and I’m pretty sure Oliver Stone did get inspiration from this. This happens after he’s finally caught by criminals and there’s a “kangaroo” court session held by them which is being watched by a “large, silent crowd”, whom I’m assuming are normal, law abiding civilians approving this act of vigilantism, which is against the law.
In this monologue, he lambasts the people judging him by claiming he never had the privilege of “choice” due to the way his mind is wired while the people who caught him did and they chose to be criminals and the people watching are choosing to let the law be broken. Again, the director ALLOWED him to give this monologue so there isn’t much doubt that it doesn’t serve this purpose
The themes here seem to be an indictment of social degeneration given the appropriate triggers and personal responsibility which seemingly extends to parents who don’t take enough responsibility for keeping their kids safe. The killer here is essentially a force of nature and the purpose of his existence in the movie other than keeping the audience immersed in the “cat and mouse” plot is to drive home the aforementioned theme.
In the grand scheme of things, he is just a plot device to depict the reactions of different groups of people and what even average people are willing to accept when fear gets the better of them.
Just my humble opinion.
Graphic content was tolerated up until 1934, and then again after the mid 60’s.
Independent films post Hays code were also peddled under the counter like maniac (1934) that contained graphic violence, sexual content and nudity. Then there were a few like The Immoral Mr. Teas (1959) that somehow managed to slip past the censors despite being classified as softcore pornography today… And a few splatter films like two thousand maniacs and blood feast that somehow got through… How did they get through? I have no idea… The content within these films is fairly gratuitous.
Hays code took the market for pornography in the US underground, as hardcore pornographic films were turning up starting from the late 1900’s. Also made it an offence to possess Tijuana Bible’s, made it difficult to import pornographic magazines from Europe and Aus (dawn magazine started in the 20’s)
However with the advent of the MPAA, the criteria instilled through the Hays code became far less relevant as we now had film classification standards. “Don’t take your kids to see this”, “err on the side of caution with this one”.
Film ratings exist to protect kids… Not grown adults, and even then; imo it should be up to the parent to decide what their kid can and can’t watch… Up to a certain point that is. It’d be absolutely ridiculous if I told my 17 y/old son “no, you can’t watch terminator!”
Irreversible is one of the “new French extremity” films that’d never, ever be released on circuit circa 2021
It’s an amazing movie, but aside from the rape scene there are additive scenes of extremely graphic violence. If you don’t have a very strong stomach, if you aren’t extremely desensitized to violence and cruelty chances are you won’t be sitting through the whole film
I skipped through most of the rape scene. It started… Then it went on for about a minute and I was like “nope”, fast forward… Because it literally goes on for like seven minutes, and it’s extremely explicit. I can still watch and enjoy the film without watching. I liked the way the film told it’s story, it’s told in reverse order; from back to front.
However that film also (to my recollection) contains unsimulated sexual content. It’s really not a film for 99% of the world’s population. It’s not a bad film, but it caters towards a niche audience that likes snooty art films. Similar to antichrist (with Willam Dafoe), love (Gaspar Noe) and I stand alone.
Antichrist is about a married couple who makes a retreat to a secluded cabin in the woods after they lose their only child in a horrific accident. After seeing a shrink to try and get over their grief, the husband decides to take his wife out to a secluded cabin in the woods. It’s complicated, but my interpretation of the film was… There is evil in the woods, the wide (hard to explain) falls into the grips of Satan and loses her sanity. Very dark, nihilistic movie; but beautiful, artfully shot… Also contains unsimulated sexual content, it is art; but it’s extremely off-putting. Not as disturbing as something like “kids” because it’s a horror film and I don’t believe in demonic possession.
Love is a porno badly veiled as an art film
I stand alone is a film about a butcher who from a young age has been systematically rejected, abused or excluded from society. He father’s a daughter, whom he is overprotective over… Did I mention the guy is attracted to his daughter? Absolutely horrible… However he doesn’t act on this… Until the end. This films ending will REALLY make you feel sick.
Fast forward… He goes to prison, gets out of prison and loses what little he has. Enraged, isolated and armed he starts contemplating violence… Everything goes downhill, the man loses his sanity. Disturbing, but also very sad as one comes to realise there are those who for whatever reason are dealt bad luck again, and again… And again… And no one is there to help them. I sympathised with the character right up until the very end… At which point I would have turned off the film due to the events that unfold, but we were already right at the end.
I know MANY sad movies! Who wants me to list more sad/depressing movies?
Has anyone seen Bojack Horseman?
You might ask me, “why would you watch such disgusting grime?”
I answer… When I was younger, morbid curiosity. Nowadays, I like movies that are “real”. I don’t like fantasical, Hollywood endings where everyone is happy, everyone who shoots for the stars attains their dreams no matter how far fetched they are. That’s not real life… Real life has twists and turns at every corner, real life is being locked down for nearly two YEARS in the most locked down area on the planet dammit.
That and
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_stand_alone
This, take aside the morally abhorrent content; most are actually really good films with highly relevant and at times thought provoking social commentary. Sometimes you’ll get a film like frontiers and it’s just gross for the sake of being gross, but that’s a horror/splatter film… What do you expect?
They’re good to watch with friends, see who taps out first. I’m typically the last one standing as from my perspective these films tend to be over the top with ridiculous premises. Only a few like the Poughkeepsie tapes, Salo (BOY do I regret watching this one… was going through the Criterion collection at the time) and black metal veins ‘got to me’. For a horror film to be able to disturb me it needs to include a premise that could feasibly occur in real life. Think “the Snowtown murders”, “wolf creek” or “my friend dahmer”. Doesn’t even have to be particularly graphic, the content simply needs to encompass a paradigm that could forseeably eventuate in real life.
@dt79 you mentioned bone tomahawk. Yes, it was gross and the violence suddenly comes out of nowhere… But it’s about cannabalistic native Americans in the 1800’s, the concept is absurd…
The only “far fetched films” that “got to me” were
Even then… I’ve never seen a film that actually kept me up at night, and I’ve seen some vile stuff. I’ve seen some documentaries that kept me up at night, but for the most part I see movies for what they are… Movies…
If I watch a particularly disturbing film, it’ll stick in my head for 6-12 hours. But I’m not the kind of person who tosses and turns at night because I saw a movie that creeped me out or repulsed me.
I don’t remember details. I saw it in 1997 or 1998. I’ll no longer comment on anything unrelated to dating and marriage.
Ok, but this isn’t the dating thread. This is a thread about movies. @BrickHead
I moved the convo to a different thread as it wasn’t appropriate to clog up the dating thread with movie trivia
If you meant you don’t want to talk about disturbing movies, that’s also fine.
Saaaaaaawwwwwwwwww… Sawsawsawsaw
Okay, I’m done.
That sounds horrible! Imagine thinking evil spirits are actually out to get you.
Did you cut off your hand and attach a chainsaw to it?
Oh ok, I see.