Ritual of stupidity?


When I watch movies like this, or almost any movies, I am starting to seriously consider the possibility that in the beginning of the movie era, there was some kind of ritual that stated: "ALL MOVIES MUST BE REALLY STUPID".

Only a handful of movies have escaped the consequences of that ritual for the most part, but there are probably no movies that would have been able to do it fully.

This movie begins with stupidities, and then they just pile up, until a viewer can't stand anymore, and too many groans have made his throat sore.

Thankfully, I have forgotten most of them already, but .. the usual "german people speak english with an accent instead of german"-thing is really stupid, and only tell about a really dumb audience that the movie tries to ásskiss.

Of course the woman is always 'protected', the woman starts asking questions from the man (who is not allowed a weakness, of course, typically misandristically) that the man couldn't possibly know. "Will they find us?" (paraphrasing) instead of "Let me share the burden bailing".

How can women call themselves 'strong and independent', if they never even offer their help, but expect even in an extreme situation for the man to take care of them, like it's for granted?

Then the submarine decides to resurface VERY CLOSE to the survivors (how is that even remotely possible, with any competent captain at the helm? Wouldn't they know where the survivors are and track them? Wouldn't they know to stay away from the destroyed boat (and its possible lifeboats) when resurfacing?). Groan.

And of course our brave group overtake the trained military germans (I don't even know if they are supposed to be Nazis or not, and with a movie this stupid, I don't really care to find out), who act really stupidly, coming from the hatch one by one, instead of - for example - closing the hatch and diving.

The ensuing fight is even worse than ANYTHING ever shown in "Star Trek" (the original series). It's clumsier than any fight I have ever seen before. It's completely unrealistic and hollywood-typical - really groan-inducing indeed - and it has these typical movie stupidities, like "someone points a gun at enemy and then .. just.. waits."

Why would anyone do that in such a situation? Why not just SHOOT the enemy? IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIGHT, for crying out loud! They are prepared to shoot, explode, kill, destroy a whole shipful of people, but not the "survivors", oh no. Don't shoot THEM.

What the F kind of sense does that make?

And WHY, oh why does the german captain treat the woman like a princess on a silk pedestal? WHY? SHE IS THE FRIGGIN' ENEMY! Are you telling me that Nazis were FEMINISTIC AS HÉLL? (Well, that would actually make sense - feminists and nazis do have a LOT in common, hence the term 'feminazis' commonly and accurately used)

I don't understand this "Nazis are the worst horror-monsters of all time, _BUT_, when it comes to ENEMY women, they treat them like the women are their deities that they must worship at every step of the way"-crap that movies show us. Isn't it a bit schizophrenic, just so that a movie won't get too much hassle from the fema-fascists?

You can see the same, illogical and contradictory behaviour in "Biggles", too. The Nazis won't even TOUCH a woman, although they supposedly murder and maim all the enemy men they see without a second thought. Is THAT what they teach in the military? Shoot the enemy, but ONLY if you have affirmed that it's a MAN, not a woman?

I mean, if we are to think they are some kind of powerful enemies, why don't they EVER use their powers for self-gratification? Raping the women, or seducing them, or doing something to satisfy their sexuality - even if it's just masturbating in front of them, but no. I mean, you can't tell me that a crew that has been tucked away in a tiny metal tube for who knows how long (perhaps even months) don't get a little bit horny, especially when a young woman comes aboard? But no, they treat the woman like the woman OWNS THEM!

WHAT THE FÚCK, MAN?

And I am tired of having to make the declaration that I am not for rape or I don't want to see women abused, blah blah, yada yada - I don't honestly care in this modern climate, I would actually probably enjoy at least the possibility of seeing something like that in movies. It would be unpleasant, but at least it would be more honest, it would show that the moviemaker has balls, and that we are at least one step closer to equality. We have who knows how many movies where men are maimed, killed, brutalized, kicked in the nuts, punched mercilessly (even by women), but we don't have many, where women are even touched in a less delicate manner (Scary Movie comes to mind, but not many other examples), let alone movies where you put a 'pretty hollywood starlet' into a 'dangerous situation where they are under control of the enemy', and the enemy would actually act REALISTICALLY.

There are movies where a minion expresses some kind of sexual lust for a captured woman (who the 'hero' is supposed to rescue), and then the boss denies him this pleasure. There's absolutely no logic to this, either, unless the boss wants her for himself, but then, if that's the case, then why doesn't he just do that?

I mean, this is near the beginning of the movie, and my groan-quota is filled a long time ago.

Oh, and of course we are supposed to be SHOCKED, when the woman finally acts like an adult and DOES SOMETHING USEFUL and shoots a german man. AND THEN THAT SAME WOMAN QUESTIONS WHY THE GERMANS WANT TO KILL OTHER HUMANS!

What kind of sense does THAT make again?

Isn't that hypocrite? The woman kills, then questions why others kill? No matter what rationalization the woman would come up with, it could always be applied to the germans just as well.

I can't get past the 31 minute mark... the premise is interesting, as there are still rumours, theories about and people who believe that there is some kind of warm climate hole, maybe a hollow earth-kind of a scenario near the arctic (it can't really be completely denied or completely proven before enough people get to actually visit it and post videos of the place to youtube - I mean, it's impossible to verify one way or another, because let's face it, most of us will NEVER visit the arctic (and by 'never', I mean 'during their physical incarnation' - of course you can visit it as much as you want when you are free of the physical prison of the body).

But the movie is just _SO_FRIGGIN'_STUPID!_

I feel like yelling like the Karate teacher in UHF (that movie was also stupid, but its stupidity actually made it more charming, because it was pretty much intentional and created hilarious humor) - STOOOOOOPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID!

So I wonder, whether some kind of ritual was held, where the elder spirits of all human tribes gathered together with their guardian deities and other 'gods', and decided that because of the sins of Atlantis, all movies humans are going to make during this 'civilization' or phase in their development, are going to HAVE to be INCREDIBLY STUPID.

And why did a young woman and a man survive, and then nothing but just a handful of the crew, no passengers? Are you telling me that the woman and the man were passengers, and the rest of the people were crew? We are never explained WHY those two survived. Was the woman so ingenious? Does this movie really need a woman? Of ourse the answer is: no, it doesn't, and the woman is in the movie because Hollywood is such a predictable cash-machine instead of a fountain of creativity, that it always makes sure their movies sell, and always follows a misandristic plot that also HAS to have injected romance in it, if the plot is not built around a romance otherwise.

I wish some other entity would rise somewhere, that would produce actually CREATIVE movies that didn't have to have all these forced, enforced and injected stupidities. Then we might actually be free of that curse that the ritual must have caused..

I am of course open to any other theories - they are at least as valid as my pondering - I just can't fathom why so many movies just HAVE to be this stupid, when there doesn't seem to be a valid reason for it.

p.s. Of course there were other stupidities, like the constant "ha haa, we are the masters of the submarine now! - No you are not, because - ha haa, now WE are!", and going to the rendez-vouz by aiming directly at the side of the ship (what the heck? Who would DO that?) instead of aiming at the place where the ship is GOING TO BE by the time the submarine reaches it. There were SO MANY of this kind of stupidities .. I just can't take it anymore. Oh.. and the misandry factor: The women mentioned about killing WOMEN AND CHILDREN (always in this oder, btw - it is never said CHILDREN AND WOMEN - so apparently women are more valuable and have to be protected more than children!), but didn't mention MEN at all. Men are worthless, deserve to be killed, etc.? Could it BE more misandristic? I don't think so. And the german captain, being a man, STILL REPLIED THE SAME WAY, and didn't QUESTION this misandristic premise whatsoever! WHAT THE F? BULLETS HURT MEN, TOO! ÁSSHÓLES!









reply

You make some valid points, however, you also indulge in a "ritual of stupidity" yourself. I don't feel like pointing everything out to you, so here are just a few random samples:

• To apply the phrase "in the beginning of the movie era" to a film from 19-friggin'-75 is, well, not exactly enlightened.

• You write, "I don't even know if they are supposed to be Nazis or not, and with a movie this stupid, I don't really care to find out" – well, no additional research needed, just some paying attention to a rather simple film: It's stated when this is set, and at that time, the Nazi party (the NSDAP) didn't even exist yet (and then, after admitting of not knowing about the applicability of the term, still going on speaking of Nazis throughout the rest of the text doesn't make you look like a particularily smart cookie, either). If, on the other hand, you did realize this was taking place during WWI and still speak of Nazis, you might want to consider starting to educate yourself at least a teeny-weeny bit.

• To associate Hollywood in general ("hollywood-typical") with the negative qualities you mention just shows your lack of knowledge about said industry: Yes, like, Transformers (2007) is part of Hollywood, but if you think that's all there is to it, you are sadly and monumentally ignorant.

As an aside, I don't get your obsession about the way you think the woman should've been treated. Yes, the portrayal of savagery and war crimes would have been an option, but that doesn't mean other behavior must be unrealistic. A certain chivalry vis-à-vis women and your enemy was very much part of the German military's de-facto "officer's code" (which, obviously, doesn't mean everyone followed it, nor that those who did, did so without exception).* To me, that was actually one of the very few things that rang somewhat true in an otherwise considerable mess of a production, and, if anything, Dietz's demeanor during the climax felt out-of-place and out-of-admittedly-shady-to-begin-with-character (mind you, not the actions per se but the manner in which they were "motivated" and presented in this flick). (And while I ain't no friend of feminazis, either, you come across as having issues with women in general.)


*:
for another example, and – as opposed to this – a great film in general, see The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)


Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

reply

I didn't even have to read all of that. I can only assume you certainly did *not* see this as a kid when it 1st ran.

Wanna start seeing movies that *aren't* stupid? Make your own.

reply

Von Schoenvorts treats Lisa nicely because he's a decent hearted guy. And she wasn't an enemy. She was a civilian, and he was against hurting civilians. Remember when he refuses to let Dietz shoot the survivors of the sinking? He does say later he intends to have Bowen shot as a pirate, but likely only him; we can likely safely assume he wouldn't have also executed Bradley and the rest.

And Lisa did participate briefly in the fight to take the subl; she shot one of the Germans.

Why would anyone do that in such a situation? Why not just SHOOT the enemy? IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIGHT, for crying out loud! They are prepared to shoot, explode, kill, destroy a whole shipful of people, but not the "survivors", oh no. Don't shoot THEM.


Von Schoenvorts saw the sinking of the ship as a necessary evil. It was carrying illegal arms to Europe. Once it was sunk, his duty as a submariner is concluded. Now the arms won't reach Europe. Why kill the survivors? It'd be wasteful of time and ammunition, against the rules of war, and reprehensible and evil to boot, and that isn't the kind of man von Schoenvorts is. (In the novel, the Germans do shoot at the survivors, and von Schoenvorts is quite evil.)

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

Hey, O.P., don't like the movie, GO READ THE BOOK!

BOHICA America!

reply

You have way too much time on your hands! As Metalllica says nothing else matters!

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

it's called having an imagination


*Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!*

reply

uh huh Aloha nui loa!

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply