MovieChat Forums > Heisenberg

Heisenberg (915)


WARNING New Star Wars movie could trigger seizures Best movie of 2019 is this one Why not Winona Horowitz? Would it benefit for being NOT RELATED to Batman? A2M yes or no? How is porch monkey racist? Problems with Terminator 2 Was the Cosby show racist? Can they make a sequel to this? Pinkman after Heisenberg View all posts >


I agree. But it's not just corruption: it has a lot to do with the courage of a child, that doesn't understand all the meekness, cowardice, lazyness of many grownups that mean well and think well but DON'T ACT. Time magazine agrees with me. I AM the one who knocks! The Rise of Skywalker is the one who knocks at epilepsy's door. Right...because you want people to talk about a movie in a "don't watch it it will give you seizures" way. That's just the buzz Disney needs to bring back the force to SW... Lol 1- He's just looking, nothing wrong with wandering eyes. Eyes are made for looking 2- Why insult him with the republican label? I think he would probably be a republican, especially in the 80s, but I don't see how that would be appropriate about his "wandering eyes". 3- He's certainly not a pig, he loves his wife and does miracles to save her. Never seemed to be interested in other women (even though they are separated at that moment) I watched it when I was 9 around december. Awesomest Christmas movie experience! Anything is possible at all times. Even that Kubrick hated Alex and sided with the other droogs. I'm just interpreting what's on screen and what seems more likely: that we are placed on Alex's side, and that Kubrick felt deep sympathy for such a monstrous jolly scoundrel and figured it would be more interesting to try and see the world through his eyes than just judge him for what he is. Same thing cannot be said about Humbert: he's never a scoundrel, he's certainly not the monster he truly is, instead he's quite the superior character in a world of idiots. I agree that art is quite subjective, but I'm not trying to describe my own take on it, rather what's portrayed by the artist. That also explains why I strangely write "us" as us viewers. Because the movie is not aimed just at me I'm quite sure it would sound weird writing "the movie puts me on Alex side all the time" . Speaking of which, again we don't agree: Alex, monstrous and all, is the hero of the story and at all times we are with him, on his side, in his POV. That's the whole point of the movie, of what Kubrick was doing with it, and its shock value: we are sided with a rapist and sadist, and we don't like being in that position. But while in Orange we are clearly sided with a monster, like you said it, and Kubrick stance is manifest (even if he is the hero of the story, we all know he is a horrible little monster), in Lolita I don't see a moment where Humbert is exposed for the huge piece of shit monster that he truly is. I didn't see any targeting of Humbert whatsoever. He's clearly a tragic figure, but one that is never condemned one iota by Kubrick. If anything, Kubrick finds the situation funny but empathyzes with him: Humbert is just diddling with the little girl, nothing serious afterall. Like I said in my OP, if anything, Lolita is the one that is commented upon with her ignorance and manipulation and lies. Humbert is just there, almost following her lead as a nymphette that knows too well what's the game, he's just a poor old horny chap that happens to be there. The reality that is never shown here, is that Humbert plots the whole thing from the start, he's the one pressuring Lolita, enjoying toying with her, exploting the mom, abusing her once her mother is dead and setting up an impossible relationship once they are on the run. He is the ADULT and Lolita is a MINOR and that is RAPE. Kubrick instead always takes his side, and I don't see any moment where his evil nature is actually exposed, all with the mother being so pathetic and laughable, Lolita being so bratty etc. The movie puts us on HIS side at all times. In a Clockwork Orage we are always on Alex's side, but the actions are so exagerated and hyperbolic that there is a clear distance between what's happening on the screen and the real world. After all, it's a future world, and it's a violent one at that so our adventure with Alex is contextualized. In Lolita, Humbert is a regular guy, an intellectual actually, who clearly doesn't know any better than that. Shouldn't the movie itself show some understanding for the gravity of the subject matter and give it its due respect? At least for one moment. View all replies >