The Movie Thread

Maddox

Woodpecker
Protestant
I saw this recently. This movie is pretty dark and the acting is quite good. What is scary is how this could easily happen to any man and it actually has happened to several innocent men. This movie shows why teaching is a bad choice for heterosexual men because of the people you have to work with. The school's headmaster really troubled me. Your comfortable life can be quickly shattered at any time because of a few people quick to label you guilty without proof. I don't want to spoil the movie but if you can handle subtitles, it is worthwhile.


I guess you missed my post about this one on page 159.

That scene in the church at the end was really something. Possibly the most powerful film I've ever seen.
 

Maddox

Woodpecker
Protestant
View attachment 35999Just remembered “ A Good Year” (2006) Directed. By Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crow, Albert Finney, and a really good supporting cast. Its lighter fare than usual from Ridley Scott but its well done overall. Cinematography is beautifully done and it’s generally upbeat which is refreshing at the moment

I caught this one recently and liked it too. The reviews were lackluster, but I thought it was really well directed.

Some reviewer called it, "Under The Tuscan Sun for men" which I would agree with. Watch this and you'll be ready to pack your bags and move to Europe.
 

MartyMcFly

Kingfisher
Other Christian
I guess you missed my post about this one on page 159.

That scene in the church at the end was really something. Possibly the most powerful film I've ever seen.
I forgot the movie was mentioned earlier. It is good you advised people to avoid the trailer as movie trailers often do reveal too much. Yes, the church scene was well made. I was also impressed with the acting from the girl and the teenage boy who played the son. The cast was well-chosen.
 

Maddox

Woodpecker
Protestant
I forgot the movie was mentioned earlier. It is good you advised people to avoid the trailer as movie trailers often do reveal too much. Yes, the church scene was well made. I was also impressed with the acting from the girl and the teenage boy who played the son. The cast was well-chosen.

Yeah, the acting was outstanding right across the board. That young girl was very impressive in that role at such a young age.
 

Tippy

Woodpecker
Other Christian
View attachment 35394

Fellas, last night I saw one of the most powerful movies I've ever watched; a movie that will both anger you and bring you to tears at the same time. It was another brilliant Mads Mikkelsen performance in which he plays a man accused of a lewd act due to a careless lie from a child.

The Hunt is currently showing on Amazon Prime. Here's the trailer...but as usual, they reveal a little bit too much about the story so avoid it if that bothers you.


Just watched this.

Wow this was incredibly disturbing.

I have also worked in schools teaching younger learners and know how it feels to be utterly alienated from the other staff. Elementary schools and below are basically matriarchal cults. There is an in group (of usually frumpy psychotic women) who, when they are not mentally abusing children, are taking out their frustrations in life on staff they target.

I was deeply saddened this man had his life ruined. It also makes you realise how just a few small things can easily add up. This depiction of men as basically pedophiles until proven innocent has only gotten worse in the years since this movie was made.
 

Tom Slick

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Movie - Things to Come by H. G. Wells (1937)
H.G. Wells, British Frontman and RIIA (CFR in America) shows the elite's plan of creating a scientific dictatorship to rule the entire world using advanced sciences including gassing whole populations from a world squadron of aircraft which he calls the freemasonry of airmen. Quite fascinating...
I liked this early sci-fi very much and considered this the earliest example of a movie with...

...zombie type characters, or zombie behavior. Not exactly Dawn of the Dead deadheads, but a forerunner of sorts.
 

William Faulkner

Sparrow
Orthodox
Believe it or not the main hero character wears a strange suit a lot like that one Klaus wore and everybody had a laugh. He looked like some sort of Star Trek character. There is an incredible amount of preprogramming in this movie. The ease with which the unwashed masses are controlled is put on display...something rarely seen in movies of the present. Once the scientific dictatorship has fulfilled it's utopian vision the men take on a very androgynous or even feminine countenance. It's been colorized and it's age does make it a tad bit boring at times but just imagine how much more of an attention span people had in 1937. My interpretation of HG Wells has certainly taken a darker turn in the past few months. I had no idea.
 
Last edited:

Palestrina

 
Banned
Trad Catholic
In my humble opinion pretty much all “heroes” in modern entertainment do what they do for bad reasons. Their motivations are primarily: vengeance, lust, greed, or some variant of Marxism. There is rarely found a protagonist whose story arc is driven by noble reasons.

However often movies will try to portrait nobility in their main characters by having them fight the bad guys in order to “help their friends” or “save their family” but these are usually superficial and the underlying main motivation of the character is usually selfish. They want to help their friends because of how the friend makes them feel, or because they feel the way their friend has been treated is a personal affront which can be remedied through retribution.

Case in point, I recently rewatched Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings. As someone who as read the books I can say that Jackson consistently portraits the heroes in the movies as far less virtuous and less noble minded than they are potrayed in the books. For instance the story is set against the backdrop of a global conflict between good and evil.

However most conflict is framed in human terms of petty bickering, jealousies, and helping Frodo and the hobbits because they’re nice people. The movies really miss the idea that men can be motivated to do good for a higher purpose.

There is an interesting scene where Faramir is about to lead all his knights to their death because he wants to impress his father. (Not in the books of course) Gandalf confronts him and tells him he doesn’t have to throw his life away because his father will love him in the end. The scene is interesting because nobody cared at all about the greater stakes: defeating sauron (the main villain) or defending the city (killing off all your knights is a good way to loose a battle). Instead the scene is focused on the bad feelings between Faramir and his dad and the upcoming battle with tens of thousands of lives and the fate of middle earth are secondary to the characters.

Ironically the LOTR movies are considered to be wholesome and promote “good” values.

But all in all they employ the tactics of most all modern movies which is to make an emotional appeal to our lower nature.

The enemy is belligerent but he also very subtle, throw your TV in the trash.
 

tothepoint

Woodpecker
Agnostic
That's because characters who are good just for the sake of it are boring. You need to have some personal stake into the game, otherwise the greater good vs evil battle because too abstract. If you know the end of the world is coming and is inevitable, what's the point of fighting ? There has to be some motivation that is closer to you as an individual.

LOTR is a feel good type of movie and very light on story. In the hand of someone less capable it would've been a mediocre film but Peter Jackson made the fantasy genre look cool.
 

Maddox

Woodpecker
Protestant
That's because characters who are good just for the sake of it are boring. You need to have some personal stake into the game, otherwise the greater good vs evil battle because too abstract. If you know the end of the world is coming and is inevitable, what's the point of fighting ? There has to be some motivation that is closer to you as an individual.

Wasn't Luke Skywalker fighting for the greater good in the 1970s and 80s Star Wars films?
 

Going strong

Crow
Trad Catholic
Gold Member
In my humble opinion pretty much all “heroes” in modern entertainment do what they do for bad reasons. Their motivations are primarily: vengeance, lust, greed, or some variant of Marxism. There is rarely found a protagonist whose story arc is driven by noble reasons.

However often movies will try to portrait nobility in their main characters by having them fight the bad guys in order to “help their friends” or “save their family” but these are usually superficial and the underlying main motivation of the character is usually selfish. They want to help their friends because of how the friend makes them feel, or because they feel the way their friend has been treated is a personal affront which can be remedied through retribution.

Case in point, I recently rewatched Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings. As someone who as read the books I can say that Jackson consistently portraits the heroes in the movies as far less virtuous and less noble minded than they are potrayed in the books. For instance the story is set against the backdrop of a global conflict between good and evil.

However most conflict is framed in human terms of petty bickering, jealousies, and helping Frodo and the hobbits because they’re nice people. The movies really miss the idea that men can be motivated to do good for a higher purpose.

There is an interesting scene where Faramir is about to lead all his knights to their death because he wants to impress his father. (Not in the books of course) Gandalf confronts him and tells him he doesn’t have to throw his life away because his father will love him in the end. The scene is interesting because nobody cared at all about the greater stakes: defeating sauron (the main villain) or defending the city (killing off all your knights is a good way to loose a battle). Instead the scene is focused on the bad feelings between Faramir and his dad and the upcoming battle with tens of thousands of lives and the fate of middle earth are secondary to the characters.

Ironically the LOTR movies are considered to be wholesome and promote “good” values.

But all in all they employ the tactics of most all modern movies which is to make an emotional appeal to our lower nature.

The enemy is belligerent but he also very subtle, throw your TV in the trash.

I don't share your somewhat overreaching, negative analysis on The Lord of the Rings, at all.

The Lord of the Rings' 3 movies are great, and you're looking for minute, non-important details to criticise them. The fight for Good versus Evil is all over these movies, I'm surprised you missed it. Sauron is pure evil, it's obvious in both book and movies.

For example, when Gandalf and the horsemen cavalry appear on top of the hill, shining light below onto the evil bloodthirsty ugly Orcs, it's absolutely Good about to punish Evil. The Elves, also, are obvious creatures of Good.

Anyway, there's an actor who often plays excellent Good versus Evil roles, it's Liam Neeson... just watch him in The Grey, or in the movie where he has, during one night, to save his son (witness of a murder), or the one where he's an air Marshall, or the Commuter, or the recent one where he drives a truck on ice... He does good for others, not for "vengeance, greed or lust", but just because he's a good Conservative man. Even in Taken, he'd rather not kill the Kosovar mafia boss, he wants peace once his family is safe, not revenge. A refreshing actor, indeed.
 

Tom Slick

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Even in Taken, he'd rather not kill the Kosovar mafia boss, he wants peace once his family is safe, not revenge. A refreshing actor, indeed.
I like Neeson as an actor; he's quite good. However, I think Taken illustrates Palestrina's point well because that film is just another type of trickery similar to the one he explained. Instead of a purely ignoble motivation, like revenge, a noble cause is the ostensible drive for the main character: rescuing his daughter from the evil kidnappers, who provide white girls for the rich, evil Arabs. However, that's just a setup, a moral justification for Leeson's character to torture and kill the bad guys, which is a terrible thing to justify.

This film begins with a noble cause, but it devolves into a standard revenge fantasy, and the only difference from the usual plot of this type is that his daughter is still alive and gets rescued at the end. All is well.

Hooray for Hollyweird!
 
In my humble opinion pretty much all “heroes” in modern entertainment do what they do for bad reasons. Their motivations are primarily: vengeance, lust, greed, or some variant of Marxism. There is rarely found a protagonist whose story arc is driven by noble reasons.

However often movies will try to portrait nobility in their main characters by having them fight the bad guys in order to “help their friends” or “save their family” but these are usually superficial and the underlying main motivation of the character is usually selfish. They want to help their friends because of how the friend makes them feel, or because they feel the way their friend has been treated is a personal affront which can be remedied through retribution.

Case in point, I recently rewatched Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings. As someone who as read the books I can say that Jackson consistently portraits the heroes in the movies as far less virtuous and less noble minded than they are potrayed in the books. For instance the story is set against the backdrop of a global conflict between good and evil.

However most conflict is framed in human terms of petty bickering, jealousies, and helping Frodo and the hobbits because they’re nice people. The movies really miss the idea that men can be motivated to do good for a higher purpose.

There is an interesting scene where Faramir is about to lead all his knights to their death because he wants to impress his father. (Not in the books of course) Gandalf confronts him and tells him he doesn’t have to throw his life away because his father will love him in the end. The scene is interesting because nobody cared at all about the greater stakes: defeating sauron (the main villain) or defending the city (killing off all your knights is a good way to loose a battle). Instead the scene is focused on the bad feelings between Faramir and his dad and the upcoming battle with tens of thousands of lives and the fate of middle earth are secondary to the characters.

Ironically the LOTR movies are considered to be wholesome and promote “good” values.

But all in all they employ the tactics of most all modern movies which is to make an emotional appeal to our lower nature.

The enemy is belligerent but he also very subtle, throw your TV in the trash.
Excalibur was pretty good in the higher purpose plot department (holy grail, building a kingdom ruled by God's law, defending the honor of the court).
 

Going strong

Crow
Trad Catholic
Gold Member
I like Neeson as an actor; he's quite good. However, I think Taken illustrates Palestrina's point well because that film is just another type of trickery similar to the one he explained. Instead of a purely ignoble motivation, like revenge, a noble cause is the ostensible drive for the main character: rescuing his daughter from the evil kidnappers, who provide white girls for the rich, evil Arabs. However, that's just a setup, a moral justification for Leeson's character to torture and kill the bad guys, which is a terrible thing to justify.

This film begins with a noble cause, but it devolves into a standard revenge fantasy, and the only difference from the usual plot of this type is that his daughter is still alive and gets rescued at the end. All is well.

Hooray for Hollyweird!

Don't forget that Liam Neeson, in Taken, says to the Albanian Kosovar mafia boss, that he's tired of revenge and just wants peace, and then Neeson walks off, peacefully. He only comes back to finish off the terrorist dude, because the Kosovar had just tried to shoot him in the back, again.

It seems to me, a reasonably Christian thing, such a behaviour by Neeson. You offer peace, even to your worse enemy, that you have defeated. You offer to put an end to wars. But, if after this act of generosity, your evil opponent (having falsely agreed to peace) persists in trying to kill you, well, you have no other option than finishing him for good. One cannot reason with evil people who absolutely refuse pardon and salvation.

Now, regarding the torture, you have a point. I know what you are referring to. The electricity in thighs scene.

To begin with, in all of Liam Neeson's movies, it's the only time he kills with an act of torture. It's bad, yes. I personally absolutely disliked the scene. As I condemn torture, even that of evil monsters.

So let's agree that, in Taken, Neeson commits one very bad sin, indeed. Even though his opponent was an evil killer/Kosovo terrorist /rapist /kidnapper, Neeson should not have let the electricity on. I was sad to see him in the movie commit such a sin. But, all the other people he kills, in all of his movies, it's in self defense.

For instance, the fight in the airplane closet. He ends up killing the corrupt drug dealer, but he tries everything in order not to kill him, pleading with him to surrender, waiting for the last second to snap his neck, just when the other man's gun was aligning with Neeson's neck.

I thought it was a good Christian thing to do, this fight. Your corrupt opponent is about to bring down a passenger plane and smuggle bags of coke... You have him in a headlock but he's still holding his semi automatic gun and can shoot you dead. You beg him to stop fighting, you try everything in your power not to kill him, you try everything to persuade him and calm him down, even though his gun is itching towards your own body. But, at the very last moment, given that your criminal adversary absolutely refuses your offer of peace, and insists on trying to kill you, well, you have to finish him off. Absolutely self defense, and after you've tried your best not to kill.
 

Tom Slick

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Now, regarding the torture, you have a point. I know what you are referring to. The electricity in thighs scene.


Media mentally prepares its audience for acceptance or familiarity with ideas. and there was a lot of torture by the "good guys" in media after 2001, when it was green-lighted in reality by the Bush, Jr. admin: at Gitmo, at the many black sites, at Bagram Air Base, etc.

Denzel Washington only made one film where he tortured, that was Man on Fire (2005), and it was much, much worse than Taken's electrocution scene, so bad in fact that I won't write it here, not even behind a spoiler screen.

That's what Hollywood and NYC media do, they introduce evil wrapped in sugary layers of moral ambiguity, transmitting degenerate themes into society non-stop since the early 60's at least. It's moral poison with some very rare exceptions.
 

Going strong

Crow
Trad Catholic
Gold Member
Media mentally prepares its audience for acceptance or familiarity with ideas. and there was a lot of torture by the "good guys" in media after 2001, when it was green-lighted in reality by the Bush, Jr. admin: at Gitmo, at the many black sites, at Bagram Air Base, etc.

Denzel Washington only made one film where he tortured, that was Man on Fire (2005), and it was much, much worse than Taken's electrocution scene, so bad in fact that I won't write it here, not even behind a spoiler screen.

That's what Hollywood and NYC media do, they introduce evil wrapped in sugary layers of moral ambiguity, transmitting degenerate themes into society non-stop since the early 60's at least. It's moral poison with some very rare exceptions.

Ah, Man on Fire, one of the few remakes that are better than the original.

Great acting by Denzel Washington, too, and the young girl that later on made many other movies, notably the interesting Tom Cruise alien invasion.

Well yes, there's the car cut-finger scene in this movie, very disturbing but not fully shown on screen. Denzel has to obtain urgent information from the cartel terrorist, to save lives, so he brutalises him. I would have preferred another scenario, for sure. Some other way to get the information.

It's interesting for Christian viewers and men, you're right to wonder about this... Could a Christian man apply "enhanced interrogation techniques" on an evil, godless terrorist, with the undisputed intent of saving lives?

I can't really answer, I think only religious authorities/dignitaries (his holiness the - true - Pope himself, for us Catholics) should answer this question. Personally, if the (true) Pope would explicitly allow Christian men to do, say waterboarding, on captured, proven evil terrorists when lives are at stake (and information in the terrorist's mind can doubtlessly save these lives), well, maybe I would obey, in case of absolute necessity. Though surely I would be afraid for my soul in such a situation.

Back to Man of Fire, do note that Denzel shows no pleasure in his acts (though he's slightly mocking his very evil victims) , he's not sadistic, he just wants to find and save the kidnapped girl, at any cost to the bad guys. All the more as she was his responsibility, his watch, and also, somehow, his only and last friend.
 
Top