Curt McGirt Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 20 hours ago, (BP) said: he spent half the 80s in a blackout stupor. Well, that was the first half. After he quit drinking he was coked to the gills for the other half. Not that that either explains or excuses putting that in a book of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 http://bloody-disgusting.com/videos/3458754/john-carpenter-just-directed-christine-short-film-can-watch-right-now/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Something something Prometheus School of Running Away From Things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSJ Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 On 9/12/2017 at 0:23 PM, (BP) said: he spent half the 80s in a blackout stupor. I mean, like who didn't? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 23 hours ago, OSJ said: I mean, like who didn't? I was 5-14 years old. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolfan in NYC Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 Um... okay, but how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 If Michael can survive H20 via a heretofore unrevealed Lechterian skill for deception and strategy, i can believe that Laurie Strode survived Halloween:Resurrecti8n. Now's the time to bring her together with her daughter Jamie, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 I don't think anyone's going to lose sleep if they retcon the Busta Rhymes reality show installment of the franchise, to be honest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 It's picking up 40 years after part 2 and ignoring all the other movies. So basically the exact same thing they did with H20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis Sheldon Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Brian Fowler said: It's picking up 40 years after part 2 and ignoring all the other movies. So basically the exact same thing they did with H20 I'm not mad at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Me either. I just find it funny they are literally doing the same thing again twenty years later. And it's not like there was any chance 4-6 would count, and between H20 and Resurrection, the only thing worth a damn is the Michael/Laurie sequence at the end of H20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 So is or is not Paul Rudd still raising a Celtic demon baby? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 It'll be horrible, but there won't be any Rob Zombie, right? One must be thankful for small miracles if so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 I knew Phil was mad at you about the purchased reviews! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 9 hours ago, piranesi said: So is or is not Paul Rudd still raising a Celtic demon baby? Only in an alternate timeline... Shit that baby would be like 21 now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 mother! was a descent into Hell. I have no other way to put it. Every single person that watches it is going to have a different perspective, but that's mine. It's a film I'll come back to again and probably find something I didn't the first time every single time too. Also, fuck CGI 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 I am dumb. I did not really grasp that the film was more allegorical than literal until about halfway through the movie. Spoiler When Ed Harris suffered the rib injury. It dawned on me that Act I was pretty much the chapter of Genesis from the Bible and that Jennifer Lawrence's character was some Gaia figure that was annoyed that humans had no respect for her home aka planet earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.K.o.S. Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Aronofsky has been very open about explaining that in interviews and he did so at the Q&A at our screening, but interestingly, someone asked about the orange/yellow powder and he said "That's the one thing I won't explain." I think there's a personal element to the movie for him as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 29 minutes ago, S.K.o.S. said: Aronofsky has been very open about explaining that in interviews and he did so at the Q&A at our screening, but interestingly, someone asked about the orange/yellow powder and he said "That's the one thing I won't explain." I think there's a personal element to the movie for him as well. In a film filled with allegory, every element has possible significance. I was also trying to discern the WTF of the orange dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Got in a long online conversation with a buddy of mine about it last night. He thought it was totally misogynistic and HATED it. He also thought it was total exploitation and not art in the conventional sense. We went around and around. To be fair, you can call it pretentious trash if you want and you won't be far off the mark, but I don't mind that really. At least in this circumstance. EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, he said he really wanted it to be like Burnt Offerings (?!) and was disappointed that it wasn't like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Curt McGirt said: Got in a long online conversation with a buddy of mine about it last night. He thought it was totally misogynistic and HATED it. He also thought it was total exploitation and not art in the conventional sense. We went around and around. To be fair, you can call it pretentious trash if you want and you won't be far off the mark, but I don't mind that really. At least in this circumstance. EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, he said he really wanted it to be like Burnt Offerings (?!) and was disappointed that it wasn't like that... I was a bit pissed off at first until I figured out that stuff was metaphorical. Spoiler The part where Mother is being attacked by the crowd = Global Warming disbelief / pillaging of the earth for natural resources. When Mother burns down the house = Earth cannot support dumb humans who continue to abuse the environment. Man follows the dinosaurs in a mass extinction event, but this one is probably self inflicted. When Him heals Mother's burns = God mends the damage done to earth by mankind and life on earth after humans begins. It took me hours of philosophical musing to piece things together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 I was also dumb and did not realize Spoiler the biblical allegory. Then again, I was a little sauced at the showing and kind of let the whole thing just wash over me. Aronofsky, in the Wiki, both explained it and also said not to read too much into it which is hypocritical, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Curt McGirt said: I was also dumb and did not realize Reveal hidden contents the biblical allegory. Then again, I was a little sauced at the showing and kind of let the whole thing just wash over me. Aronofsky, in the Wiki, both explained it and also said not to read too much into it which is hypocritical, but whatever. Yeah, mother! is very Black Swan-esque in the idea that imagery is very symbolic and represents some other concept or idea not directly represented by the action in the scene. The lessons to be learned in mother! are not as blatant and obvious as the ones in Requiem For A Dream. Once I remembered that Aronofsky like to use surreal terror as a teaching aide, I was able to think about the events of mother! with more of an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Finally got to see It today. That was pretty damn good all told. Maybe it could've ramped up tension for longer stretches, and I wouldn't have minded spending more time with The Losers Club, but it was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts