MovieChat Forums > Annkat
Annkat (185)
Posts
Replies
That doesn't make any sense. The only way it does is if they knew they were creating two films. Which supports that there is a finished film with Stoltz. This also means there were set pieces that were different between the films. So what Fox filmed wasn't what they wanted Stoltz to film.
There is some strange occultism surrounding this film.
Considering the numerology of the last names.
Fox - 666
Stoltz - 322 (Skull and Bones)
They took two different family pictures. In the Fox version he is sitting on a well with his siblings standing on either side of him (New Testament). In the Stoltz version, they are standing at an arched gate (Old Testament). The cross is carved on the gate over the sister's head. There is a G carved near where Stoltz is standing.
In the Fox version, the older brother is making the hidden hand gesture. In the Stoltz version, he is not making that sign. However in the Stoltz version, both the brother and sister are wearing hats. Which means they were inducted into higher learning Freemason style.
Spooky spooky stuff surrounding this film series.
The others can only do their job with the footage already completed. If they have no actors, they have no footage to work on.
They filmed the whole movie with Stoltz (aside from pick up scenes, which could be filmed with Stoltz or by a body double). Then they turned around and refilmed it again with Fox. The actors are paid for set time. So some of them (probably the majority Christopher Lloyd and Crispin Glover) were paid extra.
I think the narrator in the film states the word dutiful describing his marriage with May. The book is much worse, Archer calls his marriage a DULL duty and it only mattered because it was dignified. Where is love in that description? There isn't, because He didn't love May. But he was honorable and that was what mattered to him at the end.
There really wasn't anything holiday about this film.
It is finally reaching puberty and the testosterone is surging. The shelf life may be over for this changeling.
Its a shaved man. Ignore the makeup and the plastic surgery parts. Its hulking.
This person has never been likeable or had charismatic power in anything its been involved in. How it keeps getting cast, I don't know. It must have incriminating pictures of people in a safe somewhere.
Late reply but I agree. This version is very enjoyable. The music and the design are all lovely. They also played Emma close to what she was in the book...almost unbearable. The only thing that was questionable was the nosebleed. That was just silly.
Even still they had to dress this historical figure down. Like having him playing drums for people dancing in an alley. Saint-Georges was a high born man with a classical education at the height of the Ancien Regime. He would not have been acting the way they depicted in the film. They made him "gangsta" instead of erudite, sophisticated and charming which is really racist.
This all depends upon whether that many of the paintings of her are even real. The group in charge are inveterate liars and they like to fake art.
Many of the pictures depict Charlotte looking very...inbred. Which is extremely likely. She has the Hapsburg jaw and the strange features look like she suffered from some kind of syndrome due to inbreeding.
Everyone should take a look at the Spanish royalty, she looks exactly like them.
View all replies >