Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

[credoconsolans]

I haven't seen the movie, but from what you've described it sounds like a situation in which a person made an awful yet also understandable decision.

Yes, his actions are understandable, given the situation which he was in. They're just not forgivable. He sentenced an innocent woman to die in the cold emptiness of space because he was lonely. While one can understand his motivations for doing so, he's still the main villain of the movie, not the hero or the acceptable love interest.

do you understand at all that per the movie he waited almost 2 years before waking her up?
do you also understand that even a first year psychology student could tell you that most humans would be pants-on-head retarded batshit INSANE after being totally socially isolated for almost 2 years?

there's a point at which pouty-lipped ethical shaming simply no longer applies, though ultimately Passengers is just a rom-com with a sci-fi background and rom-coms in the US have a really bad track record of portraying the shitty things men do to women on a regular basis as romantic gestures.
but it certainly wasn't any worse than basically anything any male has ever done in any rom-com in the history of ever, so at the very least the context around the cliche was a bit different.

which is actually slightly interesting in a very mildly subversive way wherein the whole backdrop of the film just served to rationalize a guy doing the kind of shit guys do to women in rom-coms and have a real reason for it besides "psychopathic behavior is romantic."

It's not even understandable, IMO because drowning is a bad analogy. He wasn't dying. Not even close to it. He was just horny and lonely. You saw he chose a YOUNG woman and not say an older one, right? A poet and not say, a crew woman or another engineer? He had every intention of pushing his bodily needs on her. He basically selected her out of a catalog to be his sex slave.

He waited less than a year. He spent some time thinking about it. So he was already in high gear to fuck up someone else's life for his own selfish needs.

By the time she found out, they'd been together a year. THEN it was 2 years.

I just meant that it's natural for a drowning man to clutch at someone else. Selfish, sure, and potentially harmful to both, definitely. But to me, it's perfectly natural. Am I remembering right that he had spent a year in what is basically solitary confinement?

More like being alone on a deserted luxury island.

 

[bilby]

Yes, his actions are understandable, given the situation which he was in. They're just not forgivable. He sentenced an innocent woman to die in the cold emptiness of space because he was lonely. While one can understand his motivations for doing so, he's still the main villain of the movie, not the hero or the acceptable love interest.

do you understand at all that per the movie he waited almost 2 years before waking her up?
do you also understand that even a first year psychology student could tell you that most humans would be pants-on-head retarded batshit INSANE after being totally socially isolated for almost 2 years?

there's a point at which pouty-lipped ethical shaming simply no longer applies, though ultimately Passengers is just a rom-com with a sci-fi background and rom-coms in the US have a really bad track record of portraying the shitty things men do to women on a regular basis as romantic gestures.
but it certainly wasn't any worse than basically anything any male has ever done in any rom-com in the history of ever, so at the very least the context around the cliche was a bit different.

which is actually slightly interesting in a very mildly subversive way wherein the whole backdrop of the film just served to rationalize a guy doing the kind of shit guys do to women in rom-coms and have a real reason for it besides "psychopathic behavior is romantic."

It's not even understandable, IMO because drowning is a bad analogy. He wasn't dying. Not even close to it. He was just horny and lonely. You saw he chose a YOUNG woman and not say an older one, right? A poet and not say, a crew woman or another engineer? He had every intention of pushing his bodily needs on her. He basically selected her out of a catalog to be his sex slave.

He waited less than a year. He spent some time thinking about it. So he was already in high gear to fuck up someone else's life for his own selfish needs.

By the time she found out, they'd been together a year. THEN it was 2 years.

I just meant that it's natural for a drowning man to clutch at someone else. Selfish, sure, and potentially harmful to both, definitely. But to me, it's perfectly natural. Am I remembering right that he had spent a year in what is basically solitary confinement?

More like being alone on a deserted luxury island.

I realize that the US prison system is massively fucked up, and so you can be forgiven for thinking that you made an actual distinction here; But in civilized countries, the punishment called 'solitary confinement' consists of isolation, not deprivation of luxuries. Being alone on a deserted luxury island IS solitary confinement; and would carry the same mental hardships that solitary confinement in jail does. Being alone drives people crazy very quickly, even if they have luxurious surroundings.

 

[Ford]

At the moment I'm re-watching Ex Machina.


I'd forgotten how much of this movie was just dialogue. It is visually interesting, but like Ava the beauty distracts you from what is really going on. And the house is like a maze with the characters as the rats. Long corridors with dead ends or interesting turns, but the entire structure is leading you towards a conclusion. Can the rats escape? Will they be trapped forever?

Very interesting film.

8/10

 

[credoconsolans]

Yes, his actions are understandable, given the situation which he was in. They're just not forgivable. He sentenced an innocent woman to die in the cold emptiness of space because he was lonely. While one can understand his motivations for doing so, he's still the main villain of the movie, not the hero or the acceptable love interest.

do you understand at all that per the movie he waited almost 2 years before waking her up?
do you also understand that even a first year psychology student could tell you that most humans would be pants-on-head retarded batshit INSANE after being totally socially isolated for almost 2 years?

there's a point at which pouty-lipped ethical shaming simply no longer applies, though ultimately Passengers is just a rom-com with a sci-fi background and rom-coms in the US have a really bad track record of portraying the shitty things men do to women on a regular basis as romantic gestures.
but it certainly wasn't any worse than basically anything any male has ever done in any rom-com in the history of ever, so at the very least the context around the cliche was a bit different.

which is actually slightly interesting in a very mildly subversive way wherein the whole backdrop of the film just served to rationalize a guy doing the kind of shit guys do to women in rom-coms and have a real reason for it besides "psychopathic behavior is romantic."

It's not even understandable, IMO because drowning is a bad analogy. He wasn't dying. Not even close to it. He was just horny and lonely. You saw he chose a YOUNG woman and not say an older one, right? A poet and not say, a crew woman or another engineer? He had every intention of pushing his bodily needs on her. He basically selected her out of a catalog to be his sex slave.

He waited less than a year. He spent some time thinking about it. So he was already in high gear to fuck up someone else's life for his own selfish needs.

By the time she found out, they'd been together a year. THEN it was 2 years.

I just meant that it's natural for a drowning man to clutch at someone else. Selfish, sure, and potentially harmful to both, definitely. But to me, it's perfectly natural. Am I remembering right that he had spent a year in what is basically solitary confinement?

More like being alone on a deserted luxury island.

I realize that the US prison system is massively fucked up, and so you can be forgiven for thinking that you made an actual distinction here; But in civilized countries, the punishment called 'solitary confinement' consists of isolation, not deprivation of luxuries. Being alone on a deserted luxury island IS solitary confinement; and would carry the same mental hardships that solitary confinement in jail does. Being alone drives people crazy very quickly, even if they have luxurious surroundings.

We call them 'country club' prisons.

It drives SOME people crazy. Obviously not everyone because there are such things as hermits and people who live in isolation and others who have survived on deserted islands without the luxuries. And of course he had a robot to talk to. So he really wasn't alone, was he? And again, since no one ever died of blue balls, the driving force for him was his penis because he chose a young woman he found attractive. Not someone who might help with the ship, not someone who might be a doctor. He chose someone he'd like to fuck.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We call them 'country club' prisons.

It drives SOME people crazy. Obviously not everyone because there are such things as hermits and people who live in isolation and others who have survived on deserted islands without the luxuries. And of course he had a robot to talk to. So he really wasn't alone, was he? And again, since no one ever died of blue balls, the driving force for him was his penis because he chose a young woman he found attractive. Not someone who might help with the ship, not someone who might be a doctor. He chose someone he'd like to fuck.

To be fair, though, as has been mentioned, this is the premise for a significant majority of romantic comedies. Wanting to stick your penis in someone and/or have them stick their penis into you is a justification for a whole lot of really horrific shit. I can't link to YouTube from work, but there's a good Cracked video about how everybody from rom coms is a sociopath. While it's true that this guy takes that concept and dials it up to eleven and this puts his actions on a level that's truly monstrous, it's still based on a common movie trope.

Now, if they'd changed the ending and had her go into the medical pod and continue her life on the new world while he spends decades living and then dying alone, then there would be an element of atonement to the film in that while what he did was horrific, he was able to make it right and she didn't spend the rest of her life suffering because of his crazy evilness. Instead, they had her go all Stockholm and sacrifice her own life and future in order to run back into the arms of her abuser ... and then they painted that as a positive.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, his actions are understandable, given the situation which he was in. They're just not forgivable. He sentenced an innocent woman to die in the cold emptiness of space because he was lonely. While one can understand his motivations for doing so, he's still the main villain of the movie, not the hero or the acceptable love interest.

do you understand at all that per the movie he waited almost 2 years before waking her up?
do you also understand that even a first year psychology student could tell you that most humans would be pants-on-head retarded batshit INSANE after being totally socially isolated for almost 2 years?

there's a point at which pouty-lipped ethical shaming simply no longer applies, though ultimately Passengers is just a rom-com with a sci-fi background and rom-coms in the US have a really bad track record of portraying the shitty things men do to women on a regular basis as romantic gestures.
but it certainly wasn't any worse than basically anything any male has ever done in any rom-com in the history of ever, so at the very least the context around the cliche was a bit different.

which is actually slightly interesting in a very mildly subversive way wherein the whole backdrop of the film just served to rationalize a guy doing the kind of shit guys do to women in rom-coms and have a real reason for it besides "psychopathic behavior is romantic."

It's not even understandable, IMO because drowning is a bad analogy. He wasn't dying. Not even close to it. He was just horny and lonely. You saw he chose a YOUNG woman and not say an older one, right? A poet and not say, a crew woman or another engineer? He had every intention of pushing his bodily needs on her. He basically selected her out of a catalog to be his sex slave.

He waited less than a year. He spent some time thinking about it. So he was already in high gear to fuck up someone else's life for his own selfish needs.

By the time she found out, they'd been together a year. THEN it was 2 years.

I just meant that it's natural for a drowning man to clutch at someone else. Selfish, sure, and potentially harmful to both, definitely. But to me, it's perfectly natural. Am I remembering right that he had spent a year in what is basically solitary confinement?

More like being alone on a deserted luxury island.

I realize that the US prison system is massively fucked up, and so you can be forgiven for thinking that you made an actual distinction here; But in civilized countries, the punishment called 'solitary confinement' consists of isolation, not deprivation of luxuries. Being alone on a deserted luxury island IS solitary confinement; and would carry the same mental hardships that solitary confinement in jail does. Being alone drives people crazy very quickly, even if they have luxurious surroundings.

We call them 'country club' prisons.

It drives SOME people crazy. Obviously not everyone because there are such things as hermits and people who live in isolation and others who have survived on deserted islands without the luxuries. And of course he had a robot to talk to. So he really wasn't alone, was he? And again, since no one ever died of blue balls, the driving force for him was his penis because he chose a young woman he found attractive. Not someone who might help with the ship, not someone who might be a doctor. He chose someone he'd like to fuck.

Well, if you look at it that way for Pratt's character, then what he did to Lawrence's character was not horrific at all. He woke her up and condemned her to... a life of luxury. Hell, if I were Pratt, I would have woken up a few attractive women, just to make sure one of them was into me.

 

[credoconsolans]

Well, if you look at it that way for Pratt's character, then what he did to Lawrence's character was not horrific at all. He woke her up and condemned her to... a life of luxury. Hell, if I were Pratt, I would have woken up a few attractive women, just to make sure one of them was into me.

Sure...looking at it from the asshole's POV who doesn't care what SHE wants.

But I' m not.

 

[repoman]

Pratt just needed Eva from Ex Machina. Sorted!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if you look at it that way for Pratt's character, then what he did to Lawrence's character was not horrific at all. He woke her up and condemned her to... a life of luxury. Hell, if I were Pratt, I would have woken up a few attractive women, just to make sure one of them was into me.

Exactly. It's like if someone kidnaps women and imprisons them in his mansion in the hopes that one of them will have sex with him. He's letting them stay in a frigging mansion, FFS! And yet, if the cops get involved, he's the one who'd go to jail. Just goes to show you how messed up our justice system is that it criminalizes the true heroes in our society.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, if you look at it that way for Pratt's character, then what he did to Lawrence's character was not horrific at all. He woke her up and condemned her to... a life of luxury. Hell, if I were Pratt, I would have woken up a few attractive women, just to make sure one of them was into me.

Sure...looking at it from the asshole's POV who doesn't care what SHE wants.

But I' m not.

You were looking at it from the POV that Pratt was not in a terrible situation, that he would live a life of luxury. If that is the case, then his waking up Lawrence was in no way terrible, she would be living a life of luxury as well, so it's all good. If you want to reverse yourself, and say that Pratt was indeed in an untenable situation that would only lead to a life of madness, then that's cool, as it makes him a more sympathetic character, and his actions can be better understood from that viewpoint.

 

[Sarpedon]

There's a much better movie about that called Pandorum (7/10) much more low budget, but better in every way (from what I hear, I haven't seen Passengers)

 

[credoconsolans]

Sure...looking at it from the asshole's POV who doesn't care what SHE wants.

But I' m not.

You were looking at it from the POV that Pratt was not in a terrible situation, that he would live a life of luxury. If that is the case, then his waking up Lawrence was in no way terrible, she would be living a life of luxury as well, so it's all good. If you want to reverse yourself, and say that Pratt was indeed in an untenable situation that would only lead to a life of madness, then that's cool, as it makes him a more sympathetic character, and his actions can be better understood from that viewpoint.

He would be living a life of luxury with company (robot) but unable to do what he had planned. That is, wake up on a world and have a future. Instead, he has to live and die in a spaceship with no future. Purely bad luck.

SHE also has plans. There was nothing wrong with HER capsule. SHE has a future, so yes, waking her up is an asshole, selfish pig thing to do. To serve as someone's sex slave no less. She has no choice to even be alone. He sees to that.

So, no, sorry, Pratt had it better than her.

 

[Ford]

At the risk of derailing this thread about Passengers, today I got around to watching "Whiplash." It was a Blu Ray delivery from Netflix, and it sat around my house for a long time before I finally decided to watch.

Wow. I thought it was going to be a movie about drumming and jazz, and it was that, but it was also - in a way - a musical Frankenstein story. 8/10

Show

J.K. Simmons' Fletcher is the doctor. Obsessed with proving his own powers of creation. He keeps coming back to Charlie Parker and how he went from an average musician to the best in the world. Charlie Parker is life (created by god), Fletcher wants to create something just as beautiful and perfect, and doesn't care what rules he breaks in order to do so. He's tried over and over again, but failed. When Teller's Andrew comes along, he knows he's got something special. Clay that he can work with. A vessel for his hopes and dreams like the flesh Frankenstein digs up. Yet he's been so twisted by his hubris that what he creates is not beautiful. Like Dr. Frankenstein, Fletcher has become a monster himself, and so naturally creates one in his image. That's what the ending was about. Andrew doesn't overcome adversity through persistence. He turns on his creator, then becomes him. Their battle turns into an embrace.

I think that if there were a "Whiplash 2, Electric Boogaloo," Andrew would be the teacher. He's just like Fletcher. He wants perfection and doesn't care who he hurts along the way. For me the most poignant scene is when he goes backstage after the terrible first song at the festival. His father hugs him, but after the hug he turns around and goes back onstage. He's walking away from his father, and back into the arms of the one man who really understands him.

 

[none]

War dogs
8/10
Pretty good movie

 

[repoman]

Good art is transgressive and what is more transgressive than taking someone out of stasis without consent?

Camille Paglia would like this movie.

But honestly, the narcissism of women (men have their own version) at being the special one was probably pandered to in this movie. "Wow, she is so pretty and smart that he chose here out of all the possible people! I wanna be like that!"

One would hope that any woman over the age of 15 would not being impressed by this even in fantasy. But people are what they are.

In one of the comments from a blog post with roughly credoconsolans' same view this was said:

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/passengers-movie-review-lost-sexist-space.html

Thanks for putting into words what I was too horrified to. All of the other women were "awww"ing and literally laughing out loud. It was like watching a train wreck. So many what the fucks.

So it is not just men that got "manipulated" by this movie.

Young girls are made to think handsome stalkers are cool, like in Twilight.

But honestly, if a handsome male stalker role in a movie turns some women on and a pretty stalked woman role turns some men on should the movie be banned and the people who liked it be sent to reeducation camps?

Take the movie "Body Double" as an example. Maybe I did see it too young at the age of thirteen. Being stuck too often in a voyeur mode is not healthy, so mixing it up with direct interaction is better.

 

[WAB]

Good art is transgressive and what is more transgressive than taking someone out of stasis without consent?

Camille Paglia would like this movie.

But honestly, the narcissism of women (men have their own version) at being the special one was probably pandered to in this movie. "Wow, she is so pretty and smart that he chose here out of all the possible people! I wanna be like that!"

One would hope that any woman over the age of 15 would not being impressed by this even in fantasy. But people are what they are.

In one of the comments from a blog post with roughly credoconsolans' same view this was said:

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/passengers-movie-review-lost-sexist-space.html

Thanks for putting into words what I was too horrified to. All of the other women were "awww"ing and literally laughing out loud. It was like watching a train wreck. So many what the fucks.

So it is not just men that got "manipulated" by this movie.

Young girls are made to think handsome stalkers are cool, like in Twilight.

But honestly, if a handsome male stalker role in a movie turns some women on and a pretty stalked woman role turns some men on should the movie be banned and the people who liked it be sent to reeducation camps?

Take the movie "Body Double" as an example. Maybe I did see it too young at the age of thirteen. Being stuck too often in a voyeur mode is not healthy, so mixing it up with direct interaction is better.

The time will come (has already come) when being a heterosexual male is considered a crime, No, really. The time has already come.

 

[WAB]

Good art is transgressive and what is more transgressive than taking someone out of stasis without consent?

Camille Paglia would like this movie.

But honestly, the narcissism of women (men have their own version) at being the special one was probably pandered to in this movie. "Wow, she is so pretty and smart that he chose here out of all the possible people! I wanna be like that!"

One would hope that any woman over the age of 15 would not being impressed by this even in fantasy. But people are what they are.

In one of the comments from a blog post with roughly credoconsolans' same view this was said:

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/passengers-movie-review-lost-sexist-space.html



So it is not just men that got "manipulated" by this movie.

Young girls are made to think handsome stalkers are cool, like in Twilight.

But honestly, if a handsome male stalker role in a movie turns some women on and a pretty stalked woman role turns some men on should the movie be banned and the people who liked it be sent to reeducation camps?

Take the movie "Body Double" as an example. Maybe I did see it too young at the age of thirteen. Being stuck too often in a voyeur mode is not healthy, so mixing it up with direct interaction is better.

The time will come (has already come) when being a heterosexual male is considered a crime, No, really. The time has already come.

Just WATCH the snowflake reaction:

and a 1 and a 2...

 

[bleubird]

The time will come (has already come) when being a heterosexual male is considered a crime, No, really. The time has already come.

Just WATCH the snowflake reaction:

and a 1 and a 2...

Evidence,please.

 

[ZiprHead]

War dogs
8/10
Pretty good movie

Just watched that last night. I concur.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just WATCH the snowflake reaction:

and a 1 and a 2...

Evidence,please.

Evidence? We'd need to get stuck in their head to see the world through their distorted eyes. Not worth the time.