|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
> >
> > What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.
> It involves Bruce Willis
The name of the movie is "Twelve Monkeys". I don't understand where
you got the "island" part. I don't even remember the world "island"
being even mentioned in the movie.
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen. If I remember
correctly, I have seen it 4 times, and each time I have got something
new from it.
The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" wrote:
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation - apparently perpetrated by a band
> calling themselves "the island of the twelve monkeys". As it turns out,
> this band is actually a bunch of kids out to cause a bit of trouble, and
> the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent biological scientist
> who decided to murder the world. For no defined reason. Obviously nobody
> believes that Willis is actually from the future, and he slowly goes mad,
> eventually believing that his time spent in the future is actually a
> hollucination.
>
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
I think it's a very good film (one of my favorites) that mostly makes sense
just fine. Certainly, the time travel logic used makes a lot more sense than
in most other movies with time travel, i.e. it doesn't contradict itself.
The "beauty" of the time travel story here is the recurring dream he has
about some man dying at an airport. The dream is caused by him witnessing
this stranger dying at an airport as a child, and in the end of the movie,
it turns out that the man is actually himself. So as a child he witnessed
his older self dying and the scene keeps coming back to him in his dreams.
> and the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent biological
> scientist who decided to murder the world. For no defined reason.
Sounds like something that could happen in the real world to me. Some people
*are* weird and take very strange decisions.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>>>
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> You didn't get the name right either.
>
> In what way?
>
You really deserve this one. http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen.
Wow, we have a common favorite movie, despite our often very different
tastes. :P
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> I think you mean "Twelve Monkeys":
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/
>
> Actually the name of the terrorist band should be "the army of the
> twelve monkeys". It's also the French title of the movie :-)
Hmm. You could be right. Damn, where did I get "island" from...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> You mean 12 Monkeys. It's not supposed to make sense til the end.
It didn't make sense even at the end.
But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd
given up *trying* to understand it.
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the other
> 2.
> What was confusing about this anyway?
First there's some monkeys hitting a large black brick. Then there's a
baby floating in space. Then there's something approximating a bad acid
trip. There's also a computer who calls everybody "Dave".
Um... wuh??
>> #1 Dune.
>
> Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.
It does look like the kind of film where they tried to fit a giant story
into quite a short film - with the result that it makes almost no sense
at all. (Unless you already know what's going to happen.)
[BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR
films? My God, they make *so* much more sense! Although, to watch all
three, you had better have a big bowl of popcorn... it's something
absurd like 9 hours in total.]
> FWIW, I watched and loved all three, and had no problems understanding them
> (at the end, you're supposed to be asking questions while watching).
I was. ;-) Questions like "who is that guy?", "what just happened?", and
"what is this film *about* anyway?"
> That said, they're not straight forward no-thought-required movies and, I
> believe, a lot of the attraction of them would be lost if they were
Thinking I don't mind so much. Not being entirely sure why something
happened I can handle. Having no clue what on earth you're watching
isn't so much fun...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> It involves Bruce Willis
>
> The name of the movie is "Twelve Monkeys". I don't understand where
> you got the "island" part. I don't even remember the world "island"
> being even mentioned in the movie.
Seems I mis-remembered "army" as "island" somehow... weird.
>> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
>
> Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen.
Figures.
Clearly you and I have very different tastes in film. ;-)
> The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
> to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
> I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".
I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension. [Aside from
being rather disturbing and generally unpleasent.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
> > to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
> > I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".
> I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension.
I could write a sarcastic and mean comment on your powers of
comprehension, but I'll skip it this time. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
> other
> 2.
> What was confusing about this anyway?
'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what the
chimps and the space baby were all about'
>> #1 Dune.
>
> Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.
Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some of
the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e2f0f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> >
> > You didn't get the name right either.
>
> In what way?
2001: A Space Odyssey
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |