MovieChat Forums > Maximus256 > Replies
Maximus256's Replies
You're right. I'm watching it on Showtime right now, and it freezes twice during the "I wanna come back as your mole" bed scene. Rewinding doesn't help.
I'm pretty sure the water would not have instantly frozen solid like that after being exposed to a vacuum. Instead, the zero atmosphere would have caused the water to immediately boil and turn into gas.
Another mistake sci-fi movies make is having people instantly freeze when exposed to outer space. There's no air in a vacuum and without air, body heat simply can’t be conducted away that quickly. In fact, it would take approx 8 to 12 hours to freeze solid. And in direct sunlight, you might not freeze at all - you might even heat up!
Or maybe we're all forgetting this is a movie about time travel. Doc already "knows" Marty; he's known Marty since 1955. Doc also knows how integral to everything Marty is (or will become). Doc met Marty in 1955 and sent him back to 1985, and now has to wait for Marty to be born and grow up so that in 1985 he can go back to 1955 again. Marty is the one who proves to Doc that time travel is possible and that Doc will be (or already is) successful at it. So Doc has no choice but to invent time travel and make sure Marty uses it to go to 1955 to inspire Doc to invent time travel. So its not surprising at all that Doc would befriend and keep tabs on Marty throughout his life. Doc knows the time continuum depends on this cause-and-effect loop not getting broken. The two of them are forever intertwined.
Remember this was the early 1920s when most babies were born at home, not at a hospital like almost all babies in developed countries today. Back then, most people could not afford continuing medical services - there were no health care systems or group health insurance plans to pay for hospital stays, doctor visits, ongoing checkups, meds, etc. And there might have not been a whole lot that doctors could do about miscarriages anyways.
Some of mine are:
2012
Cabin in the Woods
Constantine
District 9
Inception
Passengers
Smokey and the Bandit
Snowpiercer
The Game
The Island
Tomorrowland
V For Vendetta
Jim, the blind guy who wanted Chris' eyes, explained that Chris' brain cannot be completely removed and replaced. The brain stem must be kept because of its connections to the nervous system and functions like breathing, heart rate, body temperature, digestion, sneezing, swallowing, etc. The rest of the Chris' brain, however, could be replaced with Jim's.
Unfortunately, retaining the victim's brain stem means a "sliver" of the victim's consciousness would also end up being retained. So hypnosis is used keep this consciousness confined to the sunken place. The hypnosis is the pre-operation procedure (sedation and mental/psychological preparation) for the transplant.
The true horror of this is that that victim floats helplessly, trapped in that dark sunken place watching the world go by while someone else controls his body, for the rest of his life.
If you remember the scene, he was able to bend and use his teeth to grab at the wrist restraints, but he couldn't get them undone. So its feasible that he was also able to plug his ears with the stuffing.
Yes, she did seem groggy which was puzzling because her coffee was clearly shown sitting in the 4-cup carrier. Would she have drank some and then put it back in the carrier?
I, too, thought the plot was going in that direction which reminded me of "The Skeleton Key (2005)" which had a much more horrifying (but somehow satisfying) ending.
Kylie's peeing scene was both funny and creepy. You didn't see the humor?
Frank told Willie the "story" about Leo and Erica (which may or may not be true) just to manipulate Willie into killing Leo. Watch Frank's face afterwards when he tells Willie that "I wish there was something we could do about this Leo problem." He self-consciously glances at Willie's face to see if he's taking the bait.
Arrival and Passengers are very different movies, with artistic variations in tone, pace, and viewing experience. Arrival was more cerebral, contemplative, and scientific while Passengers was more about drama, romance, and dazzling visuals.
I appreciated and enjoyed the different experiences of both movies. I'm not sure they can be compared effectively (apples vs. bananas). Why does one have to be better than the other? Why can't they just ... be? Personally, I prefer moves to be different and not copy each other.
The car with the bomb was his rental car. The film shows him renting it at Hertz.
Kylie's peeing scene was funny and scary at the same time.
[quote]In the God-awful 2000 made-for-cable version, Towers basically deserts his crew even as they leave on the sub, just so he can selfishly die with Moira. A naval Commander running out on his command for personal convenience is a disgrace...even at the end of the world. One more mark against that dreadful, insulting and amazingly stupid movie.[/quote]
I'm haven't seen the 2000 version. But I don’t see anything “selfish”, no matter what he chooses to do. Put in that position, everyone would all handle it differently, in their own way. The war is over. There's no one left for the commander to fight. His US naval superiors are dead. There's no one left to report to. The US Gov't is dead. The entire North America and northern hemisphere are dead. There's no one left to go home to.
The whole world is going to be dead in a few more days. At this point, it doesn’t matter to anyone what anyone else does. So I don't see why the commander can't do whatever he wants. If he wants to sail off with the crew, fine. If he wants to stay with his love, why shouldn't he? Who’s to say what he should or shouldn’t do? He's not allowed to resign his now pointless post if he chooses to? Why should he care what you or anyone else thinks? If the crew still wants to sail off to die in the sea, he can appoint his 2nd-in-command or whoever’s left to Commander.