MovieChat Forums > Wuchak > Replies
Wuchak's Replies
RE: "Why were the neo-Nazis actually after them"
They didn't want them to get back down the mountain to inform the federal posse of their whereabouts, etc.
The movie establishes them as mid-20s, not teens. Matty, for instance is 25 if you do the math, which means his older brother is about 27. The blonde is said to be 24 (because it was said that she fell in love with John when she was 14 and then made a reference to her being 10 years older).
Since the black dude was Matty's best friend that pegs him around 25 too (even though the actor was 40 or whatever, he LOOKED mid-20s).
RE: "Michelle is nice but is now a confirmed lez"
Not precisely. This is what she said to Entertainment Weekly in 2013:
"I don't talk about what I do with my vagina, and they're all intrigued. I've never walked the carpet with anyone, so they wonder: What does she do with her vagina? Plus, I play a butchy girl all the time, so they assume I'm a lesbo... Eh, they're not too far off. I've gone both ways. I do as I please. I am too fucking curious to sit here and not try when I can. Men are intriguing. So are chicks."
So she's technically bisexual.
The blonde in the prologue was the most physically attractive; too bad she prematurely bowed out.
RE: "Characters too old for college?"
For one thing, the movie plainly reveals that they're not all in college. Secondly, it's established that they're all in their mid-20s. Matty, for instance, is 25 years old if you do the math, which makes the older brother, John, around 27. Also, listen closely and it's established that the blonde is 24 (it was stated that she fell in love with John when she was 14 and then made a reference to her being 10 years older).
As far as the black guy goes, it doesn't matter what age he was in real life, does the movie give the illusion that he was about 25? And the answer is a resounding 'yes.'
Thanks for the feedback.
RE: "Getting hooked on heroin or pills isn't such a bad thing when you only have a month to live anyways."
That depends on the ideology of the individual: Is it preferable to die as a drug-addled addict who weakly seeks to escape reality or is it better to wisely seek Ultimate Reality & boldly go into the Great Unknown?
RE: "Same thing with getting an STD, if I was dead in a month why should I care?"
That kind of thinking is valid only IF life on this temporal plane is all there is and there's no such thing as moral absolutes, universal good and evil. Deep inside we all know the truth, but we suppress it with so many things, like the two we're talking about here.
Yeah, it's an odd question. Drug use to escape reality is never a good thing, unless used for medical reasons (e.g. during surgery, etc.). Loose sex isn't a positive thing either, as testified by the sexual diseases (including fatal ones) and untold mental pain caused & spread by it.
<blockquote>the worst movie</blockquote>
Seriously? You must not watch many movies if you think this is the "THE worst."
1. There are renditions of the story where Snow indeed has blonde hair (like an early 20th century block puzzle). There's also at least one other film rendition where she's a blonde. Does it really matter what color her hair is? The Brothers Grimm, who wrote the original story and published it in 1812, were from central Germany where there were/are plenty of females with blonde hair (there are naturally more blondes in the north of the country as opposed to the south, being closer to Scandinavia).
2. It is BASED on the Grimm fairy tale, but not a strict adaption. Thus the dwarves are elves. Personally, I think it's an interesting touch. The presence of little people (aka "midgets") in a fantasy movie like this usually makes for an amusing tone, but the creators were shooting for something more austere. And it worked.
3. I didn't notice. They were probably wounded and therefore weren't shown dead after the battle.
4. It was a quick flash of a decapitated head, which -- yes -- looked fake if dwelt upon, but The Asylum didn't have the funds for a more authentic-looking head, thus it was shown in a quick flash. And, really, who cares in a TV-budgeted flick? Snow White cut off the evil Queen's head and that's the point.
5. The acting was fine for a low-budget movie.
I saw the uncut DVD and it showed Snow White cutting the evil Queen's head off with a sword.
She didn't seem vibrant to me at all; in fact, she seemed quite grim (or Grimm, lol). She didn't perk up until she met the prince, with whom she had great chemistry. There's nothing like love to lift you from the doldrums.
Like the other poster said, she grew up in a Convent and so didn't really know her father and thus there was little emotional impact.
As far as mourning clothes go, she probably already did that for a few days or a week and it was time to move on.
“Grimm’s Snow White” came out eleven weeks before “Snow White and the Huntsman” to steal some of its thunder. While it lacks that film’s production polish, I found the story at least as engaging and Eliza Bennett is just all-around more fitting in the title role than the nigh impassive Kristen Stewart (yes, she is blonde, but some versions of the story feature Snow as a blonde, including an early one; true, she looks like Alice in Wonderland, but -- really -- who cares?). Jamie Thomas King is also preferable to the hulking Chris Hemsworth simply because he’s more of an ‘every man’ and is just plain more likable.
Moreover, the locations and castles are awesome, shot in the heart of Europe; and the emerald forests are to die for. Sure, the CGI dragons and canine beasts are hopelessly cartoony, but that’s to be expected in a TV-budgeted flick.
If you don’t mind low-budgets and like fantasy adventures that feature all the elements noted in my title blurb, you’ll find this movie entertaining. Remember: Imagination and legend are about good and evil and the power of selfless courage against impossible odds. There is nothing more heroic than man against monster. This is what you get in “Grimm’s Snow White.”
Yes, some Asylum movies suck (e.g. “30,000 Leagues Under the Sea” and “Mega Piranha”), but some don’t (e.g. “The Land That Time Forgot” and “6 Guns”). “Grimm’s Snow White” ranks with the latter.
RE: "Monster Lips from HELL!!!!!"
Overreact much? There's nothing wrong with Sage Mears' lips or any other part of her face. I encourage you to get psychological help; better yet, spiritual help.
1/10? Seriously? You must not see many movies.
I gave it a strong 6/10 and a decent argument could be made for 7/10. The score alone is worth the price of admission.
Actually this is a good TV-budget Western, which actually illustrates the principle of evil people reaping the destruction they sow. It's a biblical principle.
<blockquote>i don't condone any kind of violence so this overstepped the limit for me. If you get some kind of perverse feeling from watching rape and child abuse then you're the reason our society is screwed up</blockquote>
Movies that try to depict reality -- e.g. any serious Western -- include things that happen in real life, like violence, rape and child abuse. If you want fantasy that's a different genre.
Are there any stories in the Bible that are heavily R-rated? Absolutely! David’s lust for the bathing Bathsheba and his subsequent adultery & murder of Uriah is a prime example. Here are some more: David chopping off Goliath’s head and parading it around as a trophy; Lot’s daughters’ incestuous actions; the mass slaughter of infants; whole cities being put to the sword, including women and children; the shocking global bloodshed in Revelation; the naked demoniac; the witch of Endor; Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law who was posing as a prostitute; etcetera, etcetera. What about the Song of Songs?
The Scriptures obviously don’t whitewash human nature but rather honestly bares it with all its potential glory or shame. The Bible isn’t the “Good Book” because it Disney-fies the human experience, but because it’s brutally honest about it and provides the wise answers for our most important dilemmas.
Good movies do the same.
Low-budget or not, this is a great psychological/spiritual horror flick.
It was simply a result of experiencing evil more personally. And, as a woman, the aftermath of a rape/beating understandably revolted her -- shocked her -- more than it would a man. Thus she runs to Douglas hysterically encouraging him to slay the scum culprits.
<blockquote>The neighbour raped and killed the wife and since it was only 6 months since it happened and the daughter was at least 3 or 4, why didn't she tell her father the bad guy was their neighbour?</blockquote>
Obviously the little girl didn't see him (the neighbor) when he raped/killed her mother. Either she was locked in another room or the thug had a mask on or both. Remember, Douglas (Peck) got his false info from the duplicitous neighbor and not his daughter.
I found the lesbian scene lame and forced in a wannabe edgy way. It had no place in the story, but appeals to the target audience, adolescent or adolescent-minded males. Some posters here say the lesbian sequence develops Calita Rainford's character, who earlier made a comment that pegged her as a lesbian; and thus the ghosts were using that inclination to mess with her. That's a legitimate reason to justify the scene, but it felt forced to me, like the filmmakers were trying to be 'hip' or whatever.
The film, as a whole, is decidedly pedestrian and lacks any artistic finesse. Say what you will about 2005's "Death Tunnel," but at least it balanced the conventional adolescent horror shenanigans with kinetic editing & effects and an awesome sense of artistry. It had superior women too.
Anyone who thinks Audie Murphy's character (the Utica Kid) was "gay" either (1.) didn't watch the movie, where it's clear that he's romantically inclined toward Charlotte (Dianne Foster), or (2.) WANTS to read that non-interpretation into the movie for obvious reasons.
The idea that "Night Passage" opened to "poor... business" isn't supported by this quote from the internet:
"Though not as memorable as other Stewart-Mann films, Night Passage was a commercial success upon its release and has become a staple of cable television."
So which is it -- did the movie do "poor business" or was it a "commercial success"? It can't be both.