Reminds him of puberty.
Reminds him of puberty.
*shivers* Chickenpox *shivers*
I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.
Agreed. My biggest issue with the movie is that it removes all of the mystery of the book. The book starts out as a murder mystery and then slowly builds up speed like a locomotive. In the movie it's painfully obvious that Adrian killed Blake within the first half hour, because the killer is often shown in silhouette and the actor playing Adrian happens to have the exact same scrawny frame, long neck, and ball-top hair. Adrian also never comes off as honest or friendly; the movie hammers us over the head with the fact that he's up to no good. I mean come on, they even took his awesome Alexander the Great speech from the end of the movie and put it near the beginning.
I also thought shooting Iacocca in the face was cheap. The guy does have a family, he wasn't even told about it, and killing him in the movie didn't have any significance or add anything to the plot (aside from some sort of demented revenge fantasy for people that think auto and oil execs should be murdered for raping mother earth).
Sometimes the book is too nice though. I think Snyder had to do things like this to ratchet up the violence for today's audience. Shooting a guy isn't enough anymore, we have to see the bullet enter his skull and then look through the hole it made. Likewise, breaking someones arm is no longer any good. We have to see the bone break and come out the other side of the arm while it makes a squishy crunch sound. You can't just tie some dude to a heater and give him a saw and tell him to cut his own arm off; you have to hack at his skull repeatedly with a large meat cleaver to get the point across. Don't tell me the Comedian shot JFK in the face - I won't believe you unless you show it to me IN FUCKING SNYDER VISION SLOW MOTION.
It sounds stupid to say that shit, but I'm 95% certain that's why they made those changes. We Americans love our violence in movies. People are stupid. People don't understand subtlety. It's absolutely ridiculous, but in five years time, unless every movie that comes out in theaters has a torture rape scene and ends with the protagonists clubbing baby seals, I doubt any of us will see it.
I agree with what you're saying, but I also don't know enough about Iacocca to determine whether or not I care they shot him in the face.
EDIT: But God forbid they show a boob in the movie. I've seen the film twice, and the second time, a Mom in front of me walked out on the movie with her two young sons (8-10 years old). Did they walk out during the JFK assasination? The bullet through the brain? No. They walked out during the sex scene. It's fucking ridiculous the barometer some people have of what's acceptable.
Last edited by Seik; 14 Mar 2009 at 06:17 PM.
I've never understood why so many people think seeing nudity will warp a child's mind, yet have no problem with violence. My theory is that most adults are very desensitized to violence, yet sex is still arousing. I'm not sure why anyone would think a kid getting aroused is damaging to their psyche the way seeing horrific acts of murder is.
"Question the world man... I know the meaning of everything right now... it's like I can touch god." - bbobb the ggreatt
A kid is far less likely to shoot up a school than get a girl pregnant, is my guess.
Which seems like parents should take that as a motivator to explain sex and consequences, but whatever. Maybe they figure nudity in movies seen as a child = kid found naked hanging from a ceiling fan by neighbors or something embarassing like that.
Last edited by YellerDog; 14 Mar 2009 at 11:31 PM.
Bookmarks