Dec. 11, 2005, 9:03 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:03 p.m. CST
Some year I want to go. You rock for even thinking about putting together a project like this.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:04 p.m. CST
by Canada's King
Another date to circle for summer 2006!
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:05 p.m. CST
APOCALYPTO trailer to VENDETTA. Man I am dying to see these films Harry! Saw LADY VENGEANCE here last fall in NYC at the NYFF and it ruled. If that is any indication BNAT 7 sounds phenomenal. At least only 48 more hours till KONG here in NYC! When is APOCALYPTO trailer going to be in theatres Harry?!?!
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:10 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
I guess Dr. Meirschultz loves fisting... Pretty gross, imo.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:12 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
I don't care what anybody says, Gibson rocks the shit as a director. Vendetta better be as good all that, or I swear to god, I'll go get high.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:14 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
Don't knock it 'til you try it, amigo.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:15 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
Harry, nice subtle dig at Drew, lol.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:17 p.m. CST
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:18 p.m. CST
by Doom II
I wish I could watch movies for 24 hours, but I just do not have the patience anymore. I could watch 2 films back to back (with a break in between) at the most. But kudos for you hardcore movie geeks out there!
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:20 p.m. CST
...and I too look forward to the day when I can emotional scar my father. I know he deserves it.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:23 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
You liked V for Vendetta more than Kong???
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:31 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
If anything it was a cry for fascism, or at least some form of harsh justice system. Anarchy was the villain.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:33 p.m. CST
and they've been impressive. Add "V for Vendetta" to a list of films I'm dying to see in the coming year, along with SILENT HILL, GRIND HOUSE, Tony Scott's take on THE WARRIORS and Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE. Oh, and all the upcoming MASTERS OF HORROR episodes.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:33 p.m. CST
Remember, the movie didn't have the last chapter in it. The actual message of the movie is muddled as a result.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:36 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
What was the message? Still, the claim was "cinematic anarchy", which would only pertain to the movie.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:46 p.m. CST
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:51 p.m. CST
Kubrick vision for Orange was about REFORM on both a personal and a societal level and its lack of efficacy for both the society and individual. Not just a cry for anarchy - though it is arguable that was a huge part of the thesis. Ultimately in the film neither the government nor the indiviual knows what is better - being a "good" citizen (a product of the fascist government) or a "bad" (a product of the violent and arguably anarchic response) one. Both in their absolute forms may lead to futility.
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:52 p.m. CST
Dec. 11, 2005, 9:59 p.m. CST
by Tubbs Tattsyrup
They actually made V GOOD! I just re-read the comic and holy shit, if it's anything like that...........Can't fucking wait!
Dec. 11, 2005, 10:09 p.m. CST
You had all of us thinking that MUNICH was gonna play. You snookered us Harry. That was mean....And thus, how did yer butt fare? - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!
Dec. 11, 2005, 10:12 p.m. CST
Harry is right. Decent scared the hell outta me and I had to leave the theatre for a while so that I could let it go. I stepped back in and listened to the crowd and all the dudes were screaming uncontrollably. V for Vendetta was beautiful. Kong...the friggin men were crying!
Dec. 11, 2005, 10:39 p.m. CST
by Rowley Birkin QC
The Descent is the stupidest film I have ever seen. No, actually, that would be Dog Soldiers, but The Descent is absolutely terrible as well.
Dec. 11, 2005, 11:08 p.m. CST
Oh, that's good, the director hasn't seen his own movie yet.
Dec. 11, 2005, 11:10 p.m. CST
Wish I could have been there.
Dec. 11, 2005, 11:34 p.m. CST
When you started by saying that The Descent, which I've been looking forward to, was "the stupidest film I have ever seen," I was a bit worried. But then you went and said "No, actually, that would be Dog Soldiers," which told me that either A, you've only seen maybe five movies in your life and the other four were especially good; B, you have no taste and don't appreciate Dog Soldiers as a fine and very entertaining piece of horror exploitation fun; or C, all of the above. At any rate, I learned within two sentences that I didn't have any reason to trust your review of The Descent, so I'm back to looking forward to it again. Man, if Dog Soldiers is the stupidest movie you've ever seen, you must have avoided 90 percent of the films that get discussed on this site and 95 percent of the films released for the general public. Cheers.
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:29 a.m. CST
V for Vendetta more than Kong! I have gained more respect for the man, after his plugging of Kong, to be able to admit that (even though he still loved Kong...which is fine and I hope I do too.) www.unseenfilms.com
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:42 a.m. CST
Superb ownage of Mr. Round. Dog Soldiers is one of those perfect litmus test films for judging people.
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:56 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Is that right? Did I misread something? Did Harry actually say he liked V For Vendetta better than KK2005? Wow. I'm nearly in tears from that mini review. The only thing he could have said to put me over the top would have been "Most enjoyable anti-establishment film since Fight Club". The idea that anyone came even CLOSE to doing Moore justice makes me very happy. If we can get a good Philip K. Dick adaptation next year as well my moviegoing life will be nearly complete.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:36 a.m. CST
...and I know where it is; it's in Britain. It has a couple of small cuts; a few frames of the two most violent sequences are snipped out (probably to satisfy the UK ratings board) but nothing important's gone. Harry, if you actually put that sucker up before an audience, it'll knock 'em dead. I've seen that print with an audience. They left stunned. Seriously. If you've got the stones, call Dennis Bartok at the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles... he can hook you up. (In fact, see if you can get Richard Fleischer to come out and talk about it ... at the Cinematheque screening he showed up with Perry King and Brenda Sykes, and that was some fascinating shit.) (In fact, hell, aren't you doing JOHN CARTER with Paramount? For God's sake, why don't you do something really useful and get Paramount to release the three-hour original "Director's Cut" of MANDINGO that Fleischer's been dreaming of doing a commentary for? That would be SWEET.)
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:39 a.m. CST
no way was that line up better than that of bnat 5. hope you had a good time, thogh.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:44 a.m. CST
Good to see THE PROFESSIONALS get some love. Lee Marvin is one of the coolest fuckers ever.
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:17 a.m. CST
Kudos, Harry and all attendees. What a day/night it must have been! Jotting down notes to snatch up a few of these when possible!
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:25 a.m. CST
It seems kinda fetishistic if ya ask me, I can just imagine a whole theatre of Kongophiles clasping onto their "original replicas of TEN strands of Fay Wray's hair" as the film plays around them. Does this mean I should have a First Edition copy of A Scanner Darkly in my paws when I go see that? Or when the inevitable Richard Prior biopic is churned out should I be holding a signed poster to one of his stand-up performances...you know, just to prove that I'm a fan? Jackson, what kind of sick cult have you started here!?
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:02 a.m. CST
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:25 a.m. CST
And I say this not out of aragance, but because I sat there watching it, and trying to make sence of it. Ok, example; the men are sitting around a fire, having a yarn, then all of a sudden, as if by two men (or stage hands) just left and off Camera, a chewed up Animal carcus flies in and lands amoungst them. Do the men race off to chase what ever parankster 'warewolf' has done this? No! They all stand up and examine the Carcus, totally oblivious that it was just thrown in there. It's like .... what the fuck, man.
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:26 a.m. CST
And now, a nursery rhyme: "Remember, remember, the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot. Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent to blow up the King and the Parliament. Three score barrels of powder below, Poor old England to overthrow: By God's providence he was catch'd With a dark lantern and burning match. Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring. Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King! Hip hip hoorah! A penny loaf to feed the Pope. A farthing o' cheese to choke him. A pint of beer to rinse it down. A faggot of sticks to burn him. Burn him in a tub of tar. Burn him like a blazing star. Burn his body from his head. Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead. Hip hip hoorah! Hip hip hoorah!" (I like the "choke the pope" bit. heh.)
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:32 a.m. CST
.....They all just kinda go, 'now now, alright, lets get some sleep and worry about it in the morning'. What the hell were they thinking, A) while shooting B) while editing C) while watching with an audiance?
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:33 a.m. CST
I write so fast that i mispel shot al tha tim
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:35 a.m. CST
First, the word is arrogance. (Or maybe you mean Aragorn, that's a character in LOTR.) Second, what would you do, if a flying animal carcass has just scared you senseless in the middle of the night? Run around shooting at shadows? Or stay together as a group near a fire at a rock which secures at least on one side?
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:48 a.m. CST
They stop to argue whether Werewolves are real. While being attacked by them. Sean Pertwee was great, but the film was kind crap :|
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:51 a.m. CST
Yup, sorry, the logistic are all against me. I'm sitting around a fire and an Animal Carcus comes hurtling in. I'll sand up, point my gun at it, then decide to go to sleep and worry about it in the morning. Don't flame me for this film being goofy.
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:03 a.m. CST
I thought The Descent was a masterclass in how to fuck up your audience without automatically trying to make them feel ill thru gore (Yes i'm looking at you Mr.Roth). Boy, Eli must ahve been sitting there, watching The Descent, thinking 'Oh bugger! that Marshall guys talented!'
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:15 a.m. CST
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:34 a.m. CST
by mr jones
man, didn't realise you guys hadn't had the pleasure yet. The UK DVD has been out for a month or so... With regards to how good/bad it is, I personally think it's aboslutely fucking fantastic and quite easily the best horror movie released in the last five years for simple sheer scares and fun, (flame away - i know you will). But, in spite of this, and with reference to the above comment regarding the fact that it was shit - just remember one fact - this movie was delayed in it's US distribution so you guys could watch 'the cave'. Nuff said.
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:57 a.m. CST
...need to relax. It's not supposed to be an exemplary instance of air-tight plotting. Yes, it IS goofy. I'd have been disappointed if a gory horror comedy/homage/send-up like Dog Soldiers WASN'T goofy. As far as I'm concerned it's the best horror-comedy combo in years, specifically because it doesn't sacrifice the horror or thrills in favor of the comedy. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the squaddies putting on a kettle of tea while being under siege by a band of fucking werewolves is a hopeless case. "Fetch!"
Dec. 12, 2005, 6:35 a.m. CST
seeing several girl friends of mine screaming and shitting themselves was worth it.
Dec. 12, 2005, 6:43 a.m. CST
You did a hell of a job this year, Harry! And V for Vendetta (very pleasantly) surprised the hell out of me.
Dec. 12, 2005, 7:16 a.m. CST
...what a classic!!! Marvin and Palance are cinema gold.
Dec. 12, 2005, 7:54 a.m. CST
Actually, I think the point was that even as a monster McDowell as a free and complete human being was better than McDowell as a controlled and dominated slave. Listen to the conversations he has with his fellow gang members. Watch the visions he has in his head when Beethoven plays. There's a lot of admiration for his sheer capacities in the way these scenes are presented, even if it's acknowledged that he is [shall we say] evil. I think the secondary point is that the methods a society is likely to use to achieve its dream of total control and safety from monsters like McDowell are likely to be even more monstrous than he is. We certainly have seen more than enough evidence of that in the real world.
Dec. 12, 2005, 8:36 a.m. CST
Bastards! You lucky, lucky bastards!
Dec. 12, 2005, 8:44 a.m. CST
...is will the version of V for Vendetta that screened at BNAT7 be the version that makes it's way into general release? I hope so, but it sounds too good for the studio to let it out without some "feel good" edits. Then again, the Wachowski's do tend to get their way.
Dec. 12, 2005, 9:07 a.m. CST
Uhm...Didn't Alan Moore lambast this movie and say that the The Brothers W destroyed his work?
Dec. 12, 2005, 9:09 a.m. CST
Does Harry remind anyone else of the guy who constantly talks about how hot his chick is, so much so, that his friends start talking about it too, but then, you finally meet the chick and, well, she's not that hot. In fact, she's kinda average looking. I mean, King Kong? Yeah, great, fabulous. But I'll be seeing it myself in, like, 39 hours. Not much of a coup there. As for District 13 and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, again, great, wonderful. But I saw both of them 3 months ago in Toronto. In 2003, I was insanely jealous that I wasn't there. Last yar, I felt really bad for the people that were. And this year, well, I'm sure everyone had a swell time. But I don't think there were many "Holy shit!" moments like there must have been in '03.
Dec. 12, 2005, 9:35 a.m. CST
It's done, right? So when can we see it? Anyone know a date?
Dec. 12, 2005, 9:39 a.m. CST
Oh man I hope I don't get called a cuntor something for this, but it seems to me this Butt-num-a-thon might have been filled with 60% crap. I mean, those 30's films and what not. Whats it actually like when you have films like Kong & V and stunt rock? I guess that means I have a question for Harry. Does he pick the entire programe or does he advise. The cool films sound like exactly that, cool stuff for film geeks. But adding in the 30's stuff just seems to be a little..... overindulgent. Now I know what you're thinking (I'm gunna write a post to BendersShinyAss and give him what for) but hear me out. instead of these awkward 'sounding', hear that 'sounding' .... the awkward 'sounding' films, why not slip in the original scratchy as all fuck print of Empire Strikes back. and then following on that, The original scratchy as all fuck Batman print. And then. after King Kong. Show the ORIGINAL 'bang' 'smash' 'vroom' batman movie with Adam West. Oh man, what a night. And then what do we watch. Star Trek 2. And then......... that Batman vs Joker Vs Aliens vs predator film froma couple years back. That is AWESOME!!! Then. well, whats a cool film to fill a geeks heart with 'oh wow'ness.......... The Evil Dead! Fucking A.
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:03 a.m. CST
What for... Each to his own huh, if I were at BNAT I'd probably be most surprised and overjoyed at Harry playing Footlight Parade out of all the films on the line-up. Don't get me wrong, V for Vendetta and Kong are big flicks, but this is a film festival here- it's all about over-indulgence. If you ever go to Tarantino-fest, you'll realise that if you combine all these films together and squash them into a person, you'll have Quentin. Sure Harry digs Star Wars, Ripley, Khan and Ash, and who doesn't? It's just what would be so amazing about going to Austin and watching a whole bunch of films you've seen before? Yeah, you're with fellow geeky appreciators, but if you're a real geek you'll be willing to look beyond those films too.
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:10 a.m. CST
Come on, man! Give it up! Write the damn thing already and if possible, leave your desire to spooge all over Natalie Portman's bald head the fuck out of it. Could'ja do that? Please?
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:12 a.m. CST
Then I still have a remaining question. Whats it actually like watching these old black and white classics. With film geeks aching to see Kong and something superman?
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:33 a.m. CST
I'm allergic to the Celulose Acetate they used in the film stock, they make me start to hyper-ventilate and the next day I come out in hives. I'll tell ya, when I watched Casablanca that one time I almost died. What I prefer to do is close my eyes and listen to the actors speaking. It's not as good as being able to watch the picture, but at least it's something. Curse my unique Cellulose Acetate Disorder, curse it to hell!
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:40 a.m. CST
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:51 a.m. CST
by fried samurai
Every mention of V just mentions the Wachowski's like they directed it.Shouldn't McTeigue get some credit?He was the guy behind the camera.
Dec. 12, 2005, 11 a.m. CST
I've never read the comic book, but judging from what is said about it here, if it is a cry for anarchy, I'd just love to see liberals jump on this bandwagon. I mean, think about it. With anarchy, there's virtually no government, which means no lawmakers to enact environmental law, labor laws, nobody to regulate all those "evil corporations" you guys hate (though it would be impossible to incorporate without a government anyway), no civil liberties laws because how can you have rights in the national sense without a government there to acknowledge and help you defend those rights? No taxes for ridiculous "social programs" that just make citizens addicts to government money and services, slaves to a political party (which there are on both sides), like poor people who get better healthcare with no job and something like Medicaid than they would with the only type of job they could get and little or no health insurance. Why? Because if you can actually PAY any of your bills, you don't deserve any help! Isn't that how it works these days? Politicians get elected by catering to the people who are going to most heavily rely on them for everything, whether it's the minorities and the poor voting Democrat or the rich and white voting for Republicans. 'Ya know, as a small-government Republican (that dislikes the current Bush), I could really get into this anarchy stuff. Just imagine, if Alan Moore is liberal and he gets his way with anarchy, then someone could REACT to his viewpoints in whatever way they chose and not go to jail for it! Why? Because there's no authority to put that person in jail! Don't you just love it when the pendelum swings both ways! HAHAHAHA!!! PS: Fascism isn't the only form of totalitarian government with harsh penalties -- remember Communism and Gulags?
Dec. 12, 2005, 11:06 a.m. CST
Jorson 2. Politics Schmolitics. It looks like you were really grasping at straws with that post of yours there, and I really recommend you read Alan Moore's masterpiece, then at least you'll have something to say about it other than the word "anarchy".
Dec. 12, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST
...at people that leave sarcastic responses about things they know nothing about. Hope you dick FEELS bigger now. lol
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:10 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
Anarchy is pretty much on the opposite side of the spectrum of socialism. It's closest to libertarianism, which is sorta similar to conservatism (well, moreso than liberalism). For liberals to jump on the bandwagon of this movie would be quite funny because they are pro-large government. I am a neo-conservative (it's not a good time to be a red-blooded republican) and I don't like some of what Bush has done. However, most of the liberals are complete douches.
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:23 p.m. CST
by Ray Garraty #47
Did Harry actually use the phrase "Afro-American?" I was under the (wrong?) impression that that phrase was considered offensive these days. Didn't some senator or something use that term recently and get raked over the coals? By the way, I only read the Subject lines of this talkback so I don't know if that was addressed. Someone enlighten me, please.
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:27 p.m. CST
READ THE FUCKING COMIC. You'll see it's the lying, manipulative corrupt government the liberals (note the small "l") don't like, not that they agree with anarchy.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:07 p.m. CST
So there's this huge war and everything goes to pot. And a fascist government arises to fix it. The problem is, well, they aren't very nice fascists (hold on), and they also take advantage of the system. ... See the thing is, this situation as imagined requires a big war and a subsequent depression (a la Germany 1918-1933) to occur; it's not going to happen in modern times as long as these are relatively prosperous times for the large majority of Westerners (and yes, they are -- it's funny to hear Harry talk about revolution when he hasn't worked a damn day in his life) ... now, before you all start shouting "It could happen it could happen!" stop and think a second. If there's a White House propaganda machine, why are Bush's approval ratings at 40%? If there was a conspiracy to steal the 2004 election, why did the Republicans let it come down to Ohio to decide? I don't know about you, but if I'm going to steal an election, I'd make sure I have a more comfortable margin. What is this big bad bogeyman y'all are worried about? ... But the point as to why it can't happen under the current parameters of Western civilization is this: the Internet. Look at China, a nation that defines the term 'monolithic bureaucracy'. And yet the Internet is rampant there, and they're powerless to stop it. You honestly think the American people are stupid enough to fall for a V scenario? I mean, I know *you're* obviously smarter than the average American because you post to a movie news website anonymously, but seriously? Let's look at the closest example of such a government-altering situation: FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court. It failed, and he didn't have www.drudgereport.com to worry about. ... Now, as to the fascist problem in V. Fascism was, in my opinion, probably a requirement for the survival of the British people based on the parameters set in the story. The camps, though? HELL NO. And that's where I think the flaw is supposed to be: people took advantage of the situation to resolve their own grievances. For the literary-minded, compare and contrast with what Plato sets up in the Republic. It's not really that different. If the 'fascists' maintained their control strictly for the unbiased necessity of survival, then there is no story. Oh sure, there would be some malcontent (a la Vonnegut's Player Piano), but let's face it: when the chips are down, people are always going to grab the food first (cf Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). ... so to sum up: 1) It ain't gonna happen; 2) There was a better way.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:21 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
That was pretty unnecessary.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:23 p.m. CST
Everything else around here is pretty unnecessary. Just thought I'd try to add a different angle of unnecessarity(tm).
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:26 p.m. CST
Oh yeah and far and away the best scene in Dog Soldiers is when they're being chased through the forest just letting off rounds at the werewolves. When it gets to the cabin the movie really goes downhill.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:55 p.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
And if "Afrocentric" is not an offensive term, neither is that one.
Dec. 12, 2005, 1:58 p.m. CST
Dog Soldiers bored me. I really get a kick out of all the political talkback for V. Not because it's wrong or anything, hell, I think a book like V should make people think about politics cause it's a very political book. What I get a kick out of is all the jr. political scientists that pop up when debates like this come up. Kinda reminds me of when my friend was telling me all about how to properly hold a broadsword(don't ever get drunk at a rennaisance festival) when he, in fact works at Blockbuster and doesn't have a clue as to the proper usage of a broadsword. Neither do I, for that matter, but I don't go assuming since I've seen all the Highlander films ten times I know how to wield a sword. But to all those jr. poltical scientists out there please continue to enlighten me. Oh, and just because you are majoring in political science doesn't make you any more qualified to espouse on why liberals/conservatives/etc. suck/rule. Hell, I have a degree in psychology and my advice to people with problems has always been get drunk and play Final Fantasy 3. Take that 4 years of college.
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:01 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
The reason there is admiration in the way his visions are presented is because they are his visions, and the movie is essentially told from his point of view. As for the "methods of society" that you refer to, remember that those were not the ideas of a typically fascist government, but instead of a traditionally liberal idea that prisoners can be reformed. I feel that the movie's real message is that they can't, and the best situation for everybody is when Alex was locked up. This can be seen again in the way that they try to reform Dim and Pete by making them police officers, only to show how they are still just as evil and corrupt. Although it is clear that everyone is going to interpret the movie their own way, I'd still say it's a bit of a stretch to refer to it as a cry for anarchy.
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:07 p.m. CST
... (because it's a worthwhile one, and those are rare on this board), I think we need to distinguish between purposeful anarchy and non-purposeful anarchy. V was definitely the former; Alex and his droogs were the latter. And that's where the dropped ending to Clockwork Orange is an asset: in the last chapter, we see the beginning of a maturity in Alex that will hopefully remove him from unpurposeful anarchy. Not to say that he was destined to become a purposeful anarchist like V, but it's a possibility he'd have greater insights into what the government seeks to do because he has been a 'victim' of it.
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:24 p.m. CST
Sorry buddy, but you really misinterpeted the ending of Clockwork orange. Prisoners CAN be reformed, but they have to want it. That's just one of the ideas left at the end of the film. The book makes that even clearer.
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:38 p.m. CST
by Dr. Meirschultz
Again, I have not read the book, but Alex was clearly not reformed at the end of the movie. Isn't the title "Clockwork Orange" a reference to the fact that he is right back where he started despite attempts to reform him?
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:42 p.m. CST
My homeboy Tookie is going to get stuck with the lethal injections! Say it aint so Arnold! NO!!! Don't go softly into that night Tookie!! Tookie!!
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:48 p.m. CST
no he's not fully reformed at the end of the movie, but he feels remorse for what he did, he was confronted with his own old actions and attitudes by the former droogs who are now police and he was confronted with his crimes when he ended up at the writers house. Alex's talks with the priest in prison and his yearning to move away from his old life through education also suggest that he could be reformed. Kubrick leaves it far more open than Burgess but the film and novel still have a similar view and the events which take Alex to his eventual reform all happen in the film. His narration from his release from prison onwards also differs wildly from his prvious narration in terms of content and thought pattern. He's cetainly a changed character, and he's near to being reformed.
Dec. 12, 2005, 2:58 p.m. CST
The title refers to the futility of the violence Alex engaged in comparing it to the uselessness of a clockwork orange. I read the book when I was 16. One day when I was 22, I was sitting there when I "got" the title. Funny how life works like that.
Dec. 12, 2005, 3 p.m. CST
It's the name of the article being written by the dude at "Home" coming out against the procedure used on Alex. There's a quote about it (either in the book itself or elsewhere) about having all the creativity (juice) removed from an individual through programming. It's not a reference about Alex's violence.
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:04 p.m. CST
...ends with an additional chapter of Alex brooding at the milinky bar. He's alone; all his droogs have moved on and none of the young punks will hang with him. He starts to think that maybe he ought to get a job, find a woman and settle down... I read it as society triumphing over the rebel through tedious mediocrity.
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:19 p.m. CST
He does have a new gang of droogs (like the movie shows) but one of them is already trying to be bigger. In addition, he encounters one of his former droogs who is now married, and it gets him thinking that it is possible to move beyond what he was. But, I will say that "Society triumphing over the rebel through tedious mediocrity" is a great line
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:30 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
What you wrote was good, I just don't think it was worth the time you put in, lol.
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:36 p.m. CST
Well, it was a little dis-jointed. And it beats working :)
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:47 p.m. CST
and you want him to live why??
Dec. 12, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST
In his next life I hope he finds religion before destroying the lives of so many people.
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:06 p.m. CST
I was be fascetious. Sucka gets what he deserves. It's easy to find God and reform when you are looking down the barrel of a syringe filled with the Cocktail 'O Death
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:11 p.m. CST
Seems like both answers fit so I think I will go with all of the above.
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:13 p.m. CST
First, I BEGAN my previous post acknowledging that I have not read the comic book and was only reacting to the reference to the movie. Secondly, what the hell is the difference between purposeful anarchy and unpurposeful? It's sort of like pro-choice and pro-life -- bull crap because when it comes right down to it, you're either going to tolerate abortion or not tolerate it. Do you want government or do you not want government? What I think you want is a government that keeps its nose out of the public's moral and religious value system, and guess what, I agree? I'm a pro-life Republican that can't understand why marriage is so important to gays, but I'd just as soon have individuals and state and local governments make those decisions rather than have the federal government waste time arguing amongst themselves about an issue that most of them probably don't even understand from a personal standpoint. Whatever my personal viewpoints are, it's no skin off my back if gays get married, and there's no way that I can stop a woman from getting an abortion if she wants to. You couldn't stop it even BEFORE it was legalized. I think what you really mean by unpurposeful anarchy is temporary anarchy, anarchy long enough to empower a people to overthrow a tyranical government. Someone like V would act as a focal point, an example for the rest of them, someone like Adolph Hitler to remind his people that they really DO matter. See where this is going? The only problem that will ALWAYS remain is that any government is going to lean more in favor of one or a few groups of its citizens rather than another. Some people on the left would regulate business to the hilt to where nobody in the public-at-large could get rich, thereby ridding society of class distinction, at least on the surface. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't mind a government restriction or ban on religion, particularly Christianity and Judaism, because lets face it, if you REALLY follow a religion, you live by moral rules, rules as much for the self as for the society at large, rules that probably frown on certain sexual activity and self-destructive behaviors like pot smoking and excessive drinking. You'd have none of that, and if you could have all the sex and pot in the world you'd say you lived in a free society, even one that condemned people for religiosity. With people on the right, it's virtually the exact opposite -- it's the one thing Bush and Bin Laden have in common: They both want to live in a world dominated by their preferred religion. Even as a Republican, I recognize that irony - fundamentalist versus fundamentalist. Either way, what we want isn't anarchy or a lack of government. What we want is a government that caters to OUR respective value systm, OUR respective economic needs, and one maleable enough to be done away with without much effort, much work or violence. But then, that's another hypocrisy, isn't it? I've seen so-called peace rallies turn violent. How PEACEFUL is that? Ultimately, if we didn't have this dilemma, we'd have nothing to live for, there would be no V for Vendetta to marvel at and hold up -- instead of bitching, we should be grateful for these issues. They keep us occupied, active, probably much the same way as they keep the characters in V for Vendetta active and occupied. Tell me, do the people in that comic book live happily ever after? What is the purpose of their lives after they've gotten what they want, if they got it?
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m. CST
it's obvious you have never read the comic or you're fucking retarded. I read the script and it's awful, it's the little details that matter and it's those little details they fucked up. Oh...and it's a call for Anarchy is it Harry? There's nothing like Anarchy than everyone dressing up in the same clothing to represent a 'cause' is there Harry? Do you even know what Anarchy means? Fucktard...
Dec. 12, 2005, 4:30 p.m. CST
Not sure why you included me in your rant, I was merely addressing the Clockwork Orange/V for Vendetta comparisons, and felt that calling what Alex does "anarchy" does a disservice to the "anarchy" that V sows. However, I'll answer your last statement because it shows the perils of arguing on something you're not familiar with: the main characters (both protagonists and antagonists) lose everything that's important to them. But one of them goes on anyway. There is no happily ever after.
Dec. 12, 2005, 5:40 p.m. CST
Honestly, just wondering.
Dec. 12, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST
Burgess' unedited UK version had Twenty-One chapters...i.e. the age a boy comes of age. Marinate on that for a minute.
Dec. 12, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST
I think that's a pretty good reading of the last chapter - although I don't know if I would use the word "rebel", per se. And we have to somehow deal with the fact that Kubrick specifically and deliberately omits the last chapter, choosing instead to end the film on a note for triumph for McDowell - he has beaten the system, circumstances have made the government come crawling to him, the conditioning is removed, and as he listens to Beethoven his mind is filled with images that correspond to HIS idea of what beauty is. And I think that the link between Beethoven and the images in his head is very important for the Kubrick version of the story. If you look at every other person in the film, they're contemptible - the parents, the juvenile authority police officer, the prison guards, the "conditioning expert", the government minister. Not one of them is presented as being morally superior to McDowell in any way. Even the "victim" writer who catches McDowell after he leaves prison is just as cruel a specimen as the protagonist is, once his blood is up. Since all the characters are presented as more or less equally horrible, I think that the film as a whole favors the protagonist because he is presented as having a vital and interesting inner life, which is something all the other characters lack. It is true that the story is told from his point of view, but that too is a choice. Compared to his gang of droogs, the protag is a philosopher ["What do you need money for? If we want a motorcar, we snatch it from the trees..."], an aesthete, and [given the absurd and surreal visions that fill his head - sort of a combination of Goya, Dali and a snuff film] very nearly an artist. The absurd ecstasy of Beethoven's romantic music and the demented ecstasy of McDowell's visions [and entire personality] seem to be being deliberately linked thematically. Remember that both the book and the film are products of a moment in Anglo-American culture when Norman Mailer could credibly write about how engaging in anti-social violence was salutary because it put you in better touch with the life force. That's the kind of message I see here. It doesn't mesh well with a lot of Kubrick's other work, but it definitely does seem like the film is saying what Chrth notes - that the attempt to condition man to order by crushing the dark part of his spirit leaves behind nothing but "clockwork".
Dec. 12, 2005, 7:10 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
i see now why it is getting such good reviews. it is incredible. it does not feel like three hours...it flys by and now i can't wait to see it again. you will enjoy it..if you let yourself go with it.....kong himself is the most incredible effect ever put to screen bar none and i will be very surprised if weta don't take home another oscar. the film is superb in every way. 10/10. better than any rings film.
Dec. 12, 2005, 7:30 p.m. CST
Dog Soldiers, while perhaps not in the same league as A Clockwork Orange, fucking rocks. if you're looking for continuity, believability and so forth, i'd suggest looking somewhere there are no werewolves. "There is no spoon!"
Dec. 12, 2005, 7:57 p.m. CST
he wrote that before he even saw it...IF he even saw it.
annoying, isn't it?
Dec. 12, 2005, 8:14 p.m. CST
It was incredible. It surpassed my (high) expectations. I cheered, I gasped, I grinned, and I even teared up. I can understand why some people may have problems with certain parts (after all, people have different tastes), but anyone who totally dismisses this movie is a modern Scrooge. This is truly one of the greatest action/adventure/moster movies ever made. Bravo to Peter Jackson, and bravo to Harry Knowles for treating us to this movie. It is AMAZING!
Dec. 12, 2005, 8:23 p.m. CST
by Jack Burton
I've been waiting for this one for a while and hope that it erases the memories of that horrible adaptation of League of Extraordinary Gentleman.
Dec. 12, 2005, 8:40 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
as i know what i just saw. and it was kong. and it was good. no ... not just good....it is my favourite film of the year ... in fact it makes it way on to my top ten of all time. and before i am accused of any kind of jackson loving bias not one rings film is on my personal top ten. this is better than the rings trilogy. it is simply outstanding.
Dec. 12, 2005, 10:47 p.m. CST
But it's not quite 100% "chick-friendly" as some have suggested. Peter didn't exactly hold back on the Scull-Island-natives. And believe me, they're freaky. I know for a fact that some girls and kids I know are gonna shit they're pants on some of those images. Luckily it's all pretty early in the story and so much happens emotionally that it will be forgiven by the faint-hearted.
Dec. 12, 2005, 11:59 p.m. CST
by Yojimbo Jones
"This is one of the great modern epics." http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051212/REVIEWS/51203002
Dec. 13, 2005, 8:58 a.m. CST
Can someone post the link where Moore criticises the film? I thought he had serious doubts about the script, which isn't the completed film is it??? And anyway, if that cockass monologue that last script review mentioned is still in the film, how can it be a fantastic. I don't care how it's presented that was absurd.
Dec. 13, 2005, 3:06 p.m. CST
Exactly how many times do I have to say that I'm responding to the review of the material rather than the material itself? You guys act like I'm trying to sound knowledgeable about a piece of fiction I haven't even read (or seen). Not so -- I'm responding to the REVIEW! In any case, thanks for answering my question, crth. It only CONFIRMS what I already suspected. :)
Dec. 13, 2005, 3:36 p.m. CST
I may have to revise my answer, though, if certain things in the script reviews still are in the movie re: the ending. I'm not going to get into it, but there is a fear factor for me now that wasn't there before.
Dec. 13, 2005, 4:16 p.m. CST
... it's been over a decade or since I read that chapter. Thanks for the comments.
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST
When are we going to get original blockbusters? all we get are comic books, novels and remakes. Hollywood is dead. Kong wont beat Titanic. that was a once in time feat that will never be broken. they'll never be another movie that draws teenage girls 5+ times to the same film. not with $10 ticket prices and crappy end-products as movies. get over it. in the end, Kong is nothing but a story about how gravity makes things fall and go boom. the end.
Dec. 14, 2005, 2:42 a.m. CST
I wanna bring anarchy to my country, that'll show those mean conservatives. This film will be the blueprint for our attack. Yes, it should be shown in all colleges. Here's what you do. Let's rebel! Then grow old and get assimilated by society. Ah the youth. They think they're gonna change the world, reality will sink in eventually.
Dec. 14, 2005, 2:48 a.m. CST
People were eager to see titanic, how many normals are going crazy over kong...Just ask one, they are mildly interested; if that.
Dec. 14, 2005, 5:23 a.m. CST
Harry and Roger Ebert are right about it. It is that damn good. Get thee to the cinema.
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:50 a.m. CST
Yes there was a lil bit of hype before Titanic came out because it was the most expensive movie ever made at the time, but no one could have anticipated the mega hit it would be. 11 weeks at number1? That sick. Now we have this hype for Kong. I say wait till Kong comes out first, before making that comment. If the audience loves it they're keep going in droves
Dec. 14, 2005, 2:21 p.m. CST
There's too much hype behind it to ever live up to expectiations. I've seen that dame trailer on 5 times every night for the last 3 weeks. not to mention the BK commericals, video game, internet adds, etc, etc. I just dont see how a *remake* is going to draw more people in than titanic. is king kong that popular? even if it is as popular as i dont believe, i cant imagine the majority of movie-going america going to see this twice or more times. Its a popcorn flick. I think in the end, Titanic has more heart, and that's what kept women coming back for more. From what i've heard, Kong is pretty scary on that island. girls dont like scary. they like "Jack! Jack! I loves you! give me babies!" I dont even know if Kong could pass Spider-man. anyone think so?
Dec. 14, 2005, 8:39 p.m. CST
I'm just sayin'
Dec. 17, 2005, 7:41 a.m. CST
I cannot wait to see this film too. It's going to be amazing and definitely epic. Mel won't let us down - he never has before. Thanks, Harry, for the recap!!