What movie did you last watch? - Page 74

Wise Child · 06-05-2006, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somber Illusions

I watched Birth with Nicole Kidman, it was disgusting. In my opinion, it promotes child molestation.

How come? Does she actually get on it?

On a related topic, I last saw The Woodsman. It was interesting, but I disliked the ambiguous ending. I only very, very rarely like ambiguous endings - generally my view is that if I've sat through two to three hours of your movie footage, you should really give me something back.

Loy · 06-05-2006, 10:13 AM

"Birth" promoting paedophilia? That's as idiotic as Arkansas tried banning "The Tin Drum" with a similar argument....and both arguments were/are invalid. Please learn such things as "story context", "narrative experimentation", and "suspension of disbelief" before making dumn judgement calls on movies (and, really, any other art form).

Somber Illusions · 06-05-2006, 11:45 AM

Come on, they were naked in the tub together and they had numerous discussions about having sex. Don't tell me my opinion is invalid, it clearly promotes child sexuality. Think about it, we already have oblivious amounts of sexual predators. These types of movies increase sexual stimulation and cause their indecorous fantasies to become reality.

Spawn · 06-05-2006, 04:05 PM

I just saw couple movies. and the ones i liked where sillent hill,inside man,lucky number slevin,district b13 action yamakasi style movie but french,over the hedge,16 blocks. And if you go see any of those movies you will not be sorry for it.

Loy · 06-05-2006, 04:48 PM

Somber-Promotes child sexuality? not if the child in question is (according to the story) supposed to be a 40 year old. Which is why the argument about "Birth" (and "The Tin Drum") promoting paedophilia is about as silly as the argument that "Trainspotting" promotes heroin use.

Now, I'm not going to say that we don't have a large amount of sexual predators in this society. However, attacking films (and other works of art/entertainment) just because they MIGHT provoke sexual predators isn't the best way of stopping someone of this prediliction. In fact, the best way of stopping someone from becoming a predator is by going after them directly. Attack a work of art/entertainment and all you do is make said work verboten, and thus looked for more by the curious. (You wanna go into the history of art censorship in the U.S.? Right there, we have a LONG list of works that MIGHT provoke a predator, from "Naked Lunch" to "Tropic Of Cancer" to the works of the Marquis De Sade to certain works by J.G. Ballard to "Ullyses" to "Lady Chatterlys Lover" to some of the passages of "Leaves Of Grass" etc etc etc). You also do the most anti-american thing possible-you limit free speech. Sorry, but it doesn't fly.

Not only to mention that if we were gonna start messing with things that provoke sexual stimulation...hate to point out the obvious, but ANYTHING can provoke sexual stimulation. Why? We're humans, and we have both sexual anatomy and sexual urges. You ever ride the bus, and your pants are a bit tight, and the way the bus rocks back and forth causes your pants to rub ever so slightly against your penis, and all of a sudden "Holy shit, I got an erection!!!" Are you gonna argue that we should ban public transportation?

As far as images that provoke/promote paedophilia, why don't you bitch about the sexualisation of preeteens (Lindsey Lohan, the Olson twins, every other young "hot" actress)? But then again, you'll have to start pointing the blame on the average person and the society they live in rather than a select few, and I'm guessing you don't really wanna rock the boat THAT much.

As far as judging a work of art/entertainment by it's possible offensiveness.....sorry, but a work of art/entertainment that tries to stay within the border of "tasteful" is not a work of art/entertainment, but propaganda. Why? Because it's simplistic and moralistic and doesn't provoke any but the basest of thoughts. But I don't wanna argue about that right now. What I wanna do is point out that this simplification of what we should expect from art/entertainment points towards a laziness of thought. And it's this laziness of thought that's more dangerous than any sexual predator out there. Why? Because whilst sexual predators fuck with a small percentage of the population, stupid people make EVERYBODYS lives worse for the wear.

Somber Illusions · 06-05-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

In fact, the best way of stopping someone from becoming a predator is by going after them directly.

I can agree with you on this one, but its like finding a needle in a hay stack. Do you think we can catch every sexual predator out there? I highly doubt that. To truly put a large dent in this perverse part of the population, we need to attack the source of it all. Movies such as Birth are a contributor towards the creation of the pedophile.

Quote:

You also do the most anti-american thing possible-you limit free speech. Sorry, but it doesn't fly.

Yes this is true, but people have been known to "abuse" this right. Imagine if this movie was created in the 60's or even 70's, there would be a huge out-pouring of rage. They wouldn't even view it! Even today, the media had some shacking fists for this movie. People are abusing this fragile right, and has time goes, where will it be? [/quote]

Quote:

Right there, we have a LONG list of works that MIGHT provoke a predator, from "Naked Lunch" to "Tropic Of Cancer" to the works of the Marquis De Sade to certain works by J.G. Ballard to "Ullyses" to "Lady Chatterlys Lover" to some of the passages of "Leaves Of Grass" etc etc etc.

I'm not very familiar with the other authors you stated, but I do know they executed Marquis De Sade for his perverse literary creations.

Quote:

Not only to mention that if we were gonna start messing with things that provoke sexual stimulation...hate to point out the obvious, but ANYTHING can provoke sexual stimulation. Why? We're humans, and we have both sexual anatomy and sexual urges. You ever ride the bus, and your pants are a bit tight, and the way the bus rocks back and forth causes your pants to rub ever so slightly against your penis, and all of a sudden "Holy shit, I got an erection!!!" Are you gonna argue that we should ban public transportation?

How does this have anything to do with child sexuality?

Quote:

Because whilst sexual predators fuck with a small percentage of the population, stupid people make EVERYBODYS lives worse for the wear.

If I'm not mistaken, that was directed towards me. I am so stupid to have a care about our society's well-being? I see the problem, and I see whats provoking it. Is that so stupid?

Beowulf · 06-05-2006, 06:25 PM

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, Directed by Don Siegal)

" Dr Miles Bennel returns his small town practice to find several of his patients suffering the paranoid delusion that their friends or relatives are impostors. He is initially sceptical, especially when the alleged dopplegangers are able to answer detailed questions about their victim's life, but he is eventually persuaded that something odd has happened, and determines to find out what. " IMDB

One of my favourite Sci-Fi films from the 1950s...

GutterFlower · 06-05-2006, 09:28 PM

What did I last watch? Hmmmmm... let's think. Probably Beetlejuice. Got to love Tim Burton...

bjork_freak · 06-05-2006, 09:34 PM

Good evening GutterFlower.

Please introduce yourself in the Introduction forum and feel free to answer these questions.

happy_dude · 06-05-2006, 10:17 PM

Van Helsing, funny stuff.

crimsonjoy · 06-06-2006, 01:00 AM

"Dark Prince--the True Story of Dracula"

I saw this on the SciFi channel this weekend. It was supposed to be the "true story" of Vlad the Impaler, but seemed pretty romanticized. Nevertheless, it was still entertaining.

Loy · 06-06-2006, 04:48 PM

Somber-Movies such as "Birth" creates paedophiles? Putting the cart before the horse, aren't we? Sorry, but movies have only been around for a little over 100 years, whilst paedophilia's been around...umm....forever. To say that films create paedophiles is like saying Judas Priest made those kids shoot themselves back in the 80's.

As far as films from the 60's and 70's....apparently, you're not familiar with American (and world) cinema uring that time. You ever watch Igmar Bergman films? Plenty of paedophilia (and incest). Japanese films? Lots of paedophilia (and **** and torture and mutilation). French New Wave? A lot of them were about teenagers/young adults coming into their own, including their discovery of sex, and if we were to follow your earlier argument, this COULD create more paedophiles. Hell, let's look at American films. Specifically the works during the 70's. You gonna say that "Taxi Driver" created paedophiles because the hooker was 12? Or would you rather go with "Bonnie And Clyde" (the characters were supposed to be teenagers, even though the actors were a bit older), where they started shooting and killing because Clyde was impotent? And if I remember correctly, "The Tin Drum", which won an Academy Award, was released in the 70's. I'd suggest learning a bit more history (and a lot more cinema history) if you wanna try debating with me about films.

But this also brings up another point.....those works that you're so unfamiliar with, happen to be considered classics of literature. "Ullyses" usually rates as the greatest novel written in the english language (but it's also boring as fuck). "Tropic Of Cancer" was the novel where the supreme court came up with it's limitus test for what can be deemed offensive. "Naked Lunch"....dude! William S Burroughs! Where the fuck have YOU been? J.G. Ballard-former sci-fi writer who turned towards a more literary bent. Usually considered one of the greatest living authers in the world. As for the execution of the Marquis De Sade....he actually died in his sleep. Now, I know that suince you couldn't debate me about his works themselves (though I can say that I don't care for them....and care evn less about the man, but that's besides the point), you tried to create a "moral high ground" to make it seem that you're on the right side.....and you're not. I'm calling bullshit on you. Deal with it and grow from the experience. Also, I suggest you bone up on your literature. There are wonderful places in most towns called "libraries". I suggest going to one, getting yourself what's commonly refferede to as a "library card", and going from there.

As for my point about the boner on the bus...I was making a point about the idiocy of raging against things that "provoke sexual stimulation", since almost anything can do that. Apparently you missed the boat.

Which brings me to my point-yes, I'm calling you stupid. Why? Because rather than try to look at things in a realistic fashion, you try finding something to whine about in things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with everyday life. Then, when someone (me) called Bullshit on it, and tried to get you to explain yourself, you try hiding behind a faux-moralistic stand, which I then deconstructed/vivisected to show the utter stupid hypocrisy behind said stance. As I said, sexual predators are a problem...fuck it, ALL predators are a problem. However, if I were to rate the things that are problematic for mankind, I'd rate "stupidity" MUCH higher on that scale. If you care about societys problems, I suggest A-figuring out what the REAL problems in society are, and B-being proactvie in them, rather than picking on stupid shit just to bloat your own ego.

(for everyone else....SIFF is going on....will give a list of what I've seen after the festival's over).

Somber Illusions · 06-06-2006, 09:15 PM

Obviously, we are not going to see eye to eye on this, I'll end it here. Its a matter of opinion, to each their own. It doesn't make your ideas and opinions more superior than mine.

06-06-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somber Illusions

Obviously, we are not going to see eye to eye on this, I'll end it here. Its a matter of opinion, to each their own. It doesn't make your ideas and opinions more superior than mine.

Since opinion is comprised mostly of perception, and Loy has demonstrated superior ideas and opinions; you could at least accredit him some sense of noble concession on those points, though you might not agree with, you were proven wrong on.

I’ve ever loathed the words, agree to disagree, arranged together in the aforementioned manner. It’s the non-confrontational self-serving copout where one party agrees to disagree, but comes back later in the dead of night and beats the other party soundly, and very dead, with a heavy, pointy, blunty object.

Quit being so goddamn pusillanimous and keep at it, I was enjoying the dialog.

Lady Victoria Pareesis · 06-07-2006, 06:59 AM

Just watched Devil's Advocate.
Now I'm in love with John Milton. Again... *sigh*

Morrigan_Dubh · 06-07-2006, 09:28 AM

I went to see "The Omen" last night... yeah, I know, shurrup...
Anyway.. the words "pointless" and "pedestrian" came to mind as I watched it... 'Nuff said...

06-07-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigan_Dubh

I went to see "The Omen" last night... yeah, I know, shurrup...
Anyway.. the words "pointless" and "pedestrian" came to mind as I watched it... 'Nuff said...

Thanks for saving me time and money on seeing this in the theater *humps leg* I was already dreading it, I mean, how can you recast the role of GregoryfuckingPeck with anyone else?

Morrigan_Dubh · 06-07-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TStone

Thanks for saving me time and money on seeing this in the theater *humps leg* I was already dreading it, I mean, how can you recast the role of GregoryfuckingPeck with anyone else?

Yeah, poor Liev Schrieber... He didn't look like a complete idiot trying to fill those big manly shoes. He sort of had the voice down, but the rest... not a hope...
I never realised how much the character of Robert Thorn cries so much in this film until I saw the remake. And that's because Peck can cry without, y'know, wailing...

Somber Illusions · 06-07-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TStone

Since opinion is comprised mostly of perception, and Loy has demonstrated superior ideas and opinions; you could at least accredit him some sense of noble concession on those points, though you might not agree with, you were proven wrong on.

I’ve ever loathed the words, agree to disagree, arranged together in the aforementioned manner. It’s the non-confrontational self-serving copout where one party agrees to disagree, but comes back later in the dead of night and beats the other party soundly, and very dead, with a heavy, pointy, blunty object.

Quit being so goddamn pusillanimous and keep at it, I was enjoying the dialog.

It was a well-founded debate, but obviously I was not going to prevail his mind, nor was he going to mine. He had very clever ideas, which left me partially dumb. He also has a more complex mind when it comes to movies, I on the other hand have a very dense knowledge on the matter.

But, cut me some slack, I've only been around for sixteen years. He has something I lack, experience.

06-07-2006, 02:12 PM

The thesaurus is not your friend…as for the rest?

Very mature of you to recognize that perhaps you aren’t the leading source of information on a subject, and that someone may know more. Decent recovery.

Somber Illusions · 06-07-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

The thesaurus is not your friend…as for the rest?

Thesaurus? I don't even own a thesaurus.

Morrigan_Dubh · 06-08-2006, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somber Illusions

Thesaurus? I don't even own a thesaurus.

www.thesaurus.com

Somber Illusions · 06-08-2006, 08:32 AM

ok........

Emerald · 06-08-2006, 02:58 PM

Wonderland

Beowulf · 06-08-2006, 03:08 PM

Saboteur (1942, Directed by Alfred Hitchcock)

When sabotage destroys part of an aircraft plant, plant worker Barry Kane is falsely blamed for the crime. Determined to clear his name, he sets out to track down the man he believes to be the actual saboteur, the mysterious Mr. Fry. He chases Fry across the western deserts to New York, where the two men confront each other atop the Statue of Liberty.

I have`nt seen this film for ages, but watching it, the plot reminds me of `The Fugitive` a little. But Alfred Hitchcock delivers the goods, and gives a masterclass in suspense, my favourite scene being the climax on top of the Statue of Liberty.