What movie did you last watch?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

My friend and I watched Ravenous last night. It was the first time he'd seen it. He thought it was rather strange, and nothing like what he expected. I, on the other hand, loved it. Ravenous is one of my favorite films simply because it IS different. I also really like the fact that it is set shortly after the Mexican-American war. There aren't many movies set in this period, and hardly any horror/drama at that. The story was very interesting to me. Cannibalism generally isn't utilized in films as anything other than tacked on gross-out fare, while in Ravenous it was central to the plot. I was glad that there werent any CGI beasts running about and that the antagonist of the movie was a man, not a demon or monster. This made him more unsettling, in my eyes, than any horde of zombies that the hackneyed Hollywood blue screen crews could animate. The costumes are also very well done. I don't know if they're historically accurate, but I think that they looked great. I'd recommend this movie to anyone looking for something a bit off the beaten path. While not truly groundbreaking, it was interesting enough to warrant me shelling out the $9.99 to buy it on DVD.

I’ll disagree that cannibalism generally isn’t utilized in films as anything other than tacked on gross-out fare because generally it isn’t a topic you can just tack onto a film, meaning, if it is in a film, then its role is one of predominance, owing to the fact it has such a shock and awe effect.

That said, Ravenous is ok. It was nice seeing Jeffery Jones again, David Arquette is a hit or miss actor who misses more often than not, and Guy Pearce was decent…he was even fairly good in the first half of the film, until it breaks apart and becomes so much bleh. I even liked the retooling of the Wendigo myth (mah favorite Wolverine and Spiderman comic crossover was with the Wendigo btw) and the campy banjo music during the chase scenes added a sense of surrealism to the whole package.

Mostly I came away from this movie really liking the first half of the story, of becoming invested in Guy Pearce’s character, his motivations, his sense of failing and hope of redemption, and then becoming disappointed with the movie’s final closure.

Since we’re on the topic of cannibalism, I recall watching a movie (circa late 70’s) about a woman who marries and moves in with her husband’s family, who happen to have cannibalistic tendencies. I also recall the woman, at some point, being drugged and waking up on the table as the main course. Would anyone happen to recall what that movie was, who stared in it, who directed it?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by TStone

I’ll disagree that cannibalism generally isn’t utilized in films as anything other than tacked on gross-out fare because generally it isn’t a topic you can just tack onto a film, meaning, if it is in a film, then its role is one of predominance, owing to the fact it has such a shock and awe effect.

Point taken. Still, to those not very well versed in horror movies -to be honest I should probably include myself in that roll call- the most famous "cannibal movie" would probably be Silence Of The Lambs. Everyone remembers the immortal line "A census taker tried to test me once. I ate his liver, with some fava beans and a nice chianti", but that was the extent of the cannibal aspect of that movie. In the sequel, Hannibal, we get to see a man's brain cut into little pieces and fried in a pan. In both cases cannibalism itself was not integral to the plot of the film. It was thrown in, especially so in the case of the skillet-frying bit, purely to agitate the audience. Yet, "Hannibal The Cannibal" has been indelibly etched into popular culture as THE example of cannibalism in cinema. Again, I probably just haven't seen the bulk of movies in which cannibalism plays some role, but I'd say my experience is typical of the general moviegoing public. If anyone has any suggestions as to how I can broaden my horizons a bit, please let me know. I'm all ears. Or eyes, as it were.

I liked how Guy Pearce degenerated into a gibbering coward in the second half of Ravenous, and I also liked the ending. This is only my opinion, however, and you're surely entitled to your's as well. After all, if everyone had the same tastes we'd just be seeing the same old regurgitated drivel on the big screen hour after hour. Given the last few movies I've seen in the theater, however, I fear that's what things are coming to.

Actually, the facet of cannibalism was integral to his character thought-out the first movie, and on into the sequels. The audience doesn’t need a constant reminder of who he’s eaten, why, where, because it’s part of his character. He seethes depravity, and you know that with Hannibal, you’re only one stupid thought away from winding up in his tummy. The first movie dealt with Jodi Foster’s character having to interact with him, a coming of age and terms with her own childhood fears, and she must try to set aside her personal revulsions to get what she wants.

To say cannibalism was tacked on to his character as an aside is a bit of a slap in the face to the writer, and the actor who brought the character to life. I mean, if he was huffing helium ala Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, I’d concede the tacking on of a minor character trait to try and give the whole more definition, but in Hannibal’s case…it’s the driving force of who he is.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by TStone

Actually, the facet of cannibalism was integral to his character thought-out the first movie, and on into the sequels. The audience doesn’t need a constant reminder of who he’s eaten, why, where, because it’s part of his character. He seethes depravity, and you know that with Hannibal, you’re only one stupid thought away from winding up in his tummy.

To say cannibalism was tacked on to his character as an aside is a bit of a slap in the face to the writer, and the actor who brought the character to life. I mean, if he was huffing helium ala Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, I’d concede the tacking on of a minor character trait to try and give the whole more definition, but in Hannibal’s case…it’s the driving force of who he is.

I still disagree. The fact that he, as you put it, "seethes depravity" and would kill you for appearing ignortant or tactless doesn't have anything to do with cannibalism. I say that were the story to be changed you could remove "cannibalism" and replace it with "forcibly perform unneccesary surgery" quite seamlessly. He wont eat you for being stupid, he'll just lobotomize you without anesthetic. In my mind the switch really wouldn't change the fabric of the story whatsoever. Aside from the liver-and-beans remark, the only other reference to cannibalism I can remember was in the ending when Hannibal quips "I'm having an old friend for dinner." Granted, coming up with a spiffy nickname like "Hannibal The Cannibal would be a bit tougher, as "Hannibal The Sadistic Neurosurgeon" just doesn't have the same ring, but I'm convinced that cannibalism was not an important part of the story. It was mentioned very few times and the bulk of the movie was spent dealing with the crimes of Buffalo Bill, not Hannibal Lechter.

Well, I guess we can discuss the psychosis of the thing then, and what mental state, exactly, would a person become comfortable with cannibalism. The underlining story of how a monster is created, as in the Nietzsche reference at the beginning of Ravenous, paraphrased, careful of using monsters to do your work less you become one yourself, is what Jodi Foster’s character was afraid of falling victim to; of leading those innocent sheep to the slaughter, and Buffalo Bill…did I miss some part of the movie, but wasn’t he an extension of Hannibal’s personality, didn’t Dr. Lechter create him?

Literally, by fucking with his mind?

The fact he was a doctor of psychology, that he was well versed in the arts and had a deep appreciation of abstract thinking were all by-products of his predatory superiority. Cannibalism, then, is a by-product of that sadism motivating him. It was the most inhumane thing he could do to someone, even beyond mentally screwing with their minds, and the worst debasement he could inflict. I wouldn’t say that was trivial, not in the least.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by TStone

and Buffalo Bill…did I miss some part of the movie, but wasn’t he an extension of Hannibal’s personality, didn’t Dr. Lechter create him?

Literally, by fucking with his mind?

The fact he was a doctor of psychology, that he was well versed in the arts and had a deep appreciation of abstract thinking were all by-products of his predatory superiority. Cannibalism, then, is a by-product of that sadism motivating him. It was the most inhumane thing he could do to someone, even beyond mentally screwing with their minds, and the worst debasement he could inflict. I wouldn’t say that was trivial, not in the least.

Lechter never treated directly with Buffalo Bill. He dealt with Bill's gay lover, who ended up decapitated with his head pickled in a jar at Bill's hand. Hester Mofet; an anagram for "The Rest Of Me". Therefore, Lechter's influence on Bill would have been indirect at best. Lechter didn't create him.

Still, I never felt that Starling was in danger of becoming the monster that she hunted. That, I suppose, is a matter of interpreation. In any event, I've not the will to battle this out. I still say that cannibalism was not an integral part of the film. You probably won't be able to change my views, nor will I be able to dislodge you from your standpoint. I propose that we agree to disagree.

But you're wrong about Lechter creating Bill. He never dealt directly with Bill, just his gay lover, if I'm not mistaken. I may be wrong, and if I am I hope that someone will point it out in detail.

[Beowulf]

Lord of the Rings (animated version)

[Binkie]

Syriana

Reviewers that are utter assholes seemed to have thrown in the idea that this movie was based off of the book "See No Evil," by Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer.

Having read that, I figured I would have come in and seen a movie that was based around real events this guy had encountered (as that's what his book is about). Especially with the thematic tag-line, "How the CIA lost the Middle East." Far from it, as it's completely made up. This film's plot is so implausable it's not even funny. The sad thing is they try to make it seem real by basing it around real figures such as the Saudi Royal Family. Only thing it has to do with Baer is a reference to "memos."

Idea behind the film: the CIA does the dirty work for Big Oil. It goes so far as to suggest that the Iraq war was entirely based on the idea that we just wanted their oil fields. Someone want to do the math for me? Calculate how many years of Iraqi oil imports it's going to take to pay off a 2 trillion dollar bill? It's just utter crap that's pushed so far, it just goes beyond the realm of believability.

Hezbollah guerillas are depicted like a community-friendly gang that saves the day and is completely tight with the CIA officers that are in their country supposedly assassinating muslims. And of course it's totally plausable that they would throw an Iranian agent out on his ass in the middle of an interrogation session of a US intelligence agent. R-i-g-h-t. Oh wait, I almost forgot to mention that the very CIA agent they're tight with, is in fact a man who "infiltrated their organization in '85" to provide valuable intelligence.

I don't want to give away a whole lot of info on the movie, but I do want it cleared up that this is a film based on ENTERTAINMENT and has nothing to do with real events or a realistic portrayl of the CIA or it's operations.

I'm still baffled as to why I was surrounded by teen couples in the theater. Half of them had to walk out in the middle of it cause they couldn't understand a damn thing going on. Confusing? Yes. The whole movie is a series of convoluted sub-plots in which many of the characters' roles are not given to people straight up. You just have to figure it out, which is what they use to tie this into real political figures of today. Clooney, at one point, ends up in a metting with a woman AWFULLY reminiscent of Rice, but of course they never said that was Rice. Just like they gave locations for every country, state, and city where events took place, except for Saudi Arabia, since they were portraying the Royal Family. So basically you had to fill that one in everytime it refered to a location as, "The Persian Gulf." At that, it pisses me off cause they fucked up the port of Rahimah like no one's business. Argh! I loved Traffic the mini-series, but this film just pissed me off so incredibly bad. Maybe it's just the way it was marketed (i.e. "A smart film," "based on the book by...," etc.), I don't know. Wasn't a winner for me.

[cannibalnuns]

The Prophecy.

[Saya]

Hostel. Must...warn...the....public......worst...movie.... ever.

Seriously though. Twas silly.

[MedicGirl]

Scent of a Woman

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Saya

Hostel. Must...warn...the....public......worst...movie.... ever.

Seriously though. Twas silly.

O0o0o do tell..

I have been itching to talk to someone that has seen it. After all the Hype about "THE MOST BRUTAL MOVIE EVER MADE!!!", I figured it was going to suck Donkey Balls.

Please Share the tragedy with the folks here at home..

[reachingupforair]

The Excorsim of Emily Rose Very good movie. I like the questions it raises. You can't watch it without a great discussion afterwards

[Natasshha]

At the moviess HOSTEL (wow, that was surprising!!!) and rented in DVD THE MAN with Samuel Jackson and he other guy very funny (it was a good movie, very funny).

I bouth Emily rose for my dad, it was very nice, I could not sleep well after that day but I'm getting better!!!...hehehe

Nati

[Natasshha]

Originally Posted by Saya

Hostel. Must...warn...the....public......worst...movie.... ever.

Seriously though. Twas silly.

Hhehehehehe... haaa it is not that bad tough, it is not like SAW that was amazing, but it is watchable (i dont even know if that is a word), whatever PURPLE STARS you sould watch it and see for yourself if it is that bad or the contraty.

Nati

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Natasshha

whatever PURPLE STARS you sould watch it and see for yourself if it is that bad or the contraty.

Nati

There is very little worse than a Pocho like you that doesn't respect their OWN heritage. Therefore your opinion means jack and shit to me. You don't even rate being called a racist.

Next time you get a special urge to give me advice, say "Puedo comer vidrio, no me duele" until you believe it..

Thanks for Playin..

Buh-Bye.

[AlKilyu]

contraty to popular belief, I licked SWA and think PURPLE STARS sould wath it agian.

[urian]

WE watched the Brother's Grimm a few nights ago. I rate it an EH..

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars

O0o0o do tell..

I have been itching to talk to someone that has seen it. After all the Hype about "THE MOST BRUTAL MOVIE EVER MADE!!!", I figured it was going to suck Donkey Balls.

Please Share the tragedy with the folks here at home..

Well, they didn't even show that much gore. Like in the preview when you see the pliers going around the girl's toe? They don't show him tearing it off. The screen goes blank and you hear her scream. And a girl gets her eye torn out, but it looks kinda funny. Afterwards, you can still see the outline of her eye under the blood. The grossest part was probably when a guy had a drill stuck in him. I couldn't watch that ^_^ But it all looked pretty fake.

Plus for the first half hour of the movie all they are doing is going around Europe picking up hookers. Its like they thought, "Okay, the gore was pretty bad, but instead of improving on that we are going to show as much sex and nudity as we possibly can." Which is fine and dandy, but thats not why I went to go see it ^_^ And they don't spend much time at all in the torture chamber. A guy and girl escape and the rest of the movie they are running away from them. You only see three people getting tortured, and not for long at all.

Its just one of those movies you rent to laugh at, not a theatre movie. Seriously, everyone in the theatre was cracking jokes and laughing the whole time.

[WolfMoon]

Geez, guys I always thought Silence of the Lambs was a love story.



Guess I won't be bothering to watch 'Hostel', meh.......

[swt&inc angel??]

so your saying that hostel...what... had no plot or atleast a really sucky plot?? hmmm no Im not so sure I want to see it. I dont know I might get it.

[Beowulf]

Carrie (1975)


I just love this adaption of Stephen kings story, Brian de Palma did a fantastic job on it.

[Sev666]

man underworld was pretty wicked but underworld evoluotion will be better more of the half vamp half liken guy

Oh, my, god. Jack, look at his nutts.
They’re so big…they look like,
two juicy, billowy-hairy figs
But, y'know, who likes figs, anyway?
I’ll only film him, because,
he looks like a total tool, 'kay?
I mean, his nutts, they’re just so big.
I can't believe it. They’re just so round, it's like,
out there, I mean - gross. Look! *films*
He just has…so much…sack!


I like big nutts and I can not lie
You other filmers can't deny
That when a ape walks in with that biggy figgy taste
And those round things in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice those nutts was stuffed
Deep in the jeans its wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get wit'cha
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But with them ape nutts you got makes me so horny
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna get in my Lens?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupy
I've seen them figgys dancin'
The hell with romancin'
Nutt sweat, wet,
And that thing between big as a turbo Jet
I'm tired of magazines
Sayin' flat nutts are the thing
Take the average Film maker and ask him that
Ape’s gotta pack much sack
So, fellas! (Yeah!) Fellas! (Yeah!)
Has your ape got the nutts? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to shake it! (Shake it!) Shake it! (Shake it!)
Shake them healthy nutts!
Apey got sack!

(Ugly face with the Skull Island figgyfruities)
Apey got sack!

I like 'em round, and big
And when I'm throwin' a gig
I just can't help myself, I'm actin' like an animal
Now here's my scandal
I wanna get you home
And ugh, double-up, ugh, ugh
I ain't talkin' bout RKOs
'Cause them hacks film them toys
I want 'em real thick and juicy
So find that juicy double
Carl Denham’s in trouble
Beggin' for a taste of those rubbles
So I'm lookin' at cock videos
Knock-kneeded apes walkin' like hoes
You can have them bimbos
I'll keep my apes like Flo Jo
A word to the thick ape fisters, I wanna get with ya
I won't cuss or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna
Til the break of dawn
Apey got it goin' on
A lot of simians won't like this song
'Cause them punks like to hit it and quit it
And I'd rather stay and play
Man its long, what an ape dong
Let’s get down and get the filming on
So, Apey! {Yeah!} Apey! {Yeah}
If you wanna role in my bootatie {Yeah!}
Then turn around! Stick it out!
Even RKO’s got to shout
Apey got sack!

Apey got sack!
Yeah, Apey ... when it comes to filming, RKO ain't got nothin'
to do with my collection. 25 ft 8lb hangdown like a tree? Ha ha, only if I get the Peter Jackson special edition widescreen.


…

Eh, the funny thing is, an ape that big, and not one genuine fig shot. Jackson is slipping.