Time travel films are some of my favorites. They can be confusing, which makes them interesting for me, but they usually sort themselves out before the end. Predestination, possibly a year old by now, stars Ethan Hawke, and for me is the most confusing I have seen. I've watched it three times and gradually have been able to piece the parts together, but that also involved going to one of those Internet sites that explain the film. One even included a time line graph that showed the various jumps backwards and forwards, but I haven't gotten around to watching it a fourth time since reading the detailed explanation. Although, I will do it soon.
The confusion takes away from the initial watching, but after seeing it three times, it's edging up in my list of favorites on my time travel rankings. The back story is interesting although a bit weird and suffers from a lack of plausibility. That's a bit of a weakness, although not an overwhelming one, and some may not have a problem with that. I would cautiously recommend this to those interested in time travel. Mostly, I'd like the opportunity to exchange views with someone who might have seen it. I've yet to talk to anyone who seems to know about it because it wasn't a box office sensation.
I would not recommend visiting one of those sites that explain it until you have actually seen it, because you're going to get a load of spoilers along with the explanation.
It's based on Heinlein's "All You Zombies" short story. That one, and "By His Bootstraps" blew my mind back in 1963.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
It's based on Heinlein's "All You Zombies" short story. That one, and "By His Bootstraps" blew my mind back in 1963.
Yes, it's from Heinlein, although I don't think I ever read it. From the film, I don't understand Heinlein's original title. There are no zombies, unless it's a vague reference to people living in the fog of not understanding their lives. There's plenty of that in the movie.
If you like confusing cinematography, how did you like Cloud Atlas?
Quote from: SGOS on July 01, 2017, 10:59:03 AM
Yes, it's from Heinlein, although I don't think I ever read it. From the film, I don't understand Heinlein's original title. There are no zombies, unless it's a vague reference to people living in the fog of not understanding their lives. There's plenty of that in the movie.
The last line in the story is pertinent. Both shorts are online.
Quote from: Baruch on July 01, 2017, 11:04:50 AM
If you like confusing cinematography, how did you like Cloud Atlas?
For whatever reason, Cloud Atlas didn't grab my attention. I don't remember sensing confusion, but I remember vaguely wondering if the movie had a point that I was missing. I'd have to see it again to stand by that perception, however. Mulholland Drive was confusing, and no site that attempts to explain it can do no more than admit it's guesswork on their part, because the Director, David Lynch, won't give or confirm explanations.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2017, 11:49:00 AM
The last line in the story is pertinent. Both shorts are online.
OK, I read All You Zombies, which was very short. I'm not sure I downloaded a complete PDF, however. It ends right after the unmarried mother is officially recruited and quite abruptly at about 3/4 of the way through the movie with him going to bed in the dark and missing Jane. The following page starts an entirely new short story, so it seems like that was the book ending. 13 pages total. The movie adds a lot more after the book appeared to end, and helps clear up the story further. Do you think I read it all?
Edit: downloaded a second PDF. Exactly the same ending.
Quote from: SGOS on July 01, 2017, 01:38:54 PM
OK, I read All You Zombies, which was very short. I'm not sure I downloaded a complete PDF, however. It ends right after the unmarried mother is officially recruited and quite abruptly at about 3/4 of the way through the movie with him going to bed in the dark and missing Jane. The following page starts an entirely new short story, so it seems like that was the book ending. 13 pages total. The movie adds a lot more after the book appeared to end, and helps clear up the story further. Do you think I read it all?
Edit: downloaded a second PDF. Exactly the same ending.
Sounds right. The paradox is the thing in the short story, but the movie needed something to flesh it out for the people who hadn't read the short. The fact that it seems missing from short story is, to me, a compliment to the script writers, they kept RAH's work and added the struggle with the bomber. The resolution of that was perfectly in keeping with the paradox based short IMNSHO.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2017, 03:56:46 PM
Sounds right. The paradox is the thing in the short story, but the movie needed something to flesh it out for the people who hadn't read the short. The fact that it seems missing from short story is, to me, a compliment to the script writers, they kept RAH's work and added the struggle with the bomber. The resolution of that was perfectly in keeping with the paradox based short IMNSHO.
You saw the movie also, then. Although the movie adds more to the story, everything in the book is followed unusually closely for Hollywood. The opening dialog in the bar is just about word for word. The descriptions of the nuanced behaviors during the conversation were spot on. And everything that happened in the orphanage was included, although more was added to it. Everything throughout the movie seemed to be there, but just more of it. That stuff was added even improves the storytelling, I think.
Ethan Hawke is well known, but for some reason isn't seen a lot, and it seemed like he went through a long absence in the middle of his career. When I see his name on a billing, I always see the movie.
He also made some ultra low budget films, 3 that I can think of with Julie Delpey, a French actress. The names of the movies follow a pattern of "Before or After" some part of day, "Sunrise or Sunset or Midnight." There is a 4th movie with a name I can't remember that has the same nothingness about it. On the surface not much at all happens in these films. A couple meets and talks and develops a relationship that evolves 3 separate brief encounters over a span of 20 years. What for all intents and purposes should be a boring set of films, and I'm sure that to many movie goers they are exactly that, there is an unusual subtle quality in the encounters that creates a highly realistic experience. The last one didn't work for me, however. Partly because of the realism of after 20 years, the chemistry between the two had changed. Realistic but unsatisfying in a disappointing way.
The movie was made in Australia.
And I own the movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2017, 05:55:05 PM
The movie was made in Australia.
And I own the movie.
That's right, Australia. Sorry about any Hollywood references. Australia does put out some good film. And I own it too.
Quote from: SGOS on July 01, 2017, 06:32:58 PM
That's right, Australia. Sorry about any Hollywood references. Australia does put out some good film. And I own it too.
I liked that they did it in Aus. The scenery seemed 1950s to me. Brought back memories.
I just watched it again tonight, and everything came together nicely for the first time.
Everything is "from someone else". But I'd be glad to see a new version on almost anything. Emphasis on "new".
Quote from: Cavebear on July 03, 2017, 05:31:00 AM
Everything is "from someone else". But I'd be glad to see a new version on almost anything. Emphasis on "new".
Maybe not quite everything, but when I notice a movie giving credits to a book, my expectations go up. To a smaller degree, that also applies to "Based on actual events," although that often signals something sappy or patriotic. If a movie is based on a book, I assume it is to capitalize on some degree of broad based acclaim, and wasn't cobbled together by some Director who just wanted to make a movie. "Based on a book," doesn't guarantee the movie will be any good, however, because Directors can be known to turn something good into something dull and uninteresting, but an interesting book is a good place to start.
Quote from: SGOS on July 03, 2017, 06:02:48 AM
Maybe not quite everything, but when I notice a movie giving credits to a book, my expectations go up. To a smaller degree, that also applies to "Based on actual events," although that often signals something sappy or patriotic. If a movie is based on a book, I assume it is to capitalize on some degree of broad based acclaim, and wasn't cobbled together by some Director who just wanted to make a movie. "Based on a book," doesn't guarantee the movie will be any good, however, because Directors can be known to turn something good into something dull and uninteresting, but an interesting book is a good place to start.
"Amityville" movies are "based on true events". Same with "The Conjuring".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 03, 2017, 07:56:47 AM
"Amityville" movies are "based on true events". Same with "The Conjuring".
Maybe I need to rethink that last post.
People like to tell, and hear stories, with varying amounts of verisimilitude. The original history (Herodotus) was both propaganda and entertainment. A meme. And still a powerful one ... it is part of the basis for Western civilization.
So yea, a movie based on real events? You are being trolled by the marketing.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 01, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
It's based on Heinlein's "All You Zombies" short story. That one, and "By His Bootstraps" blew my mind back in 1963.
"All You Zombies" is about the only Heinlein story I ever liked. Otherwise he leaves me flat.
Quote from: SGOS on July 03, 2017, 06:02:48 AM
Maybe not quite everything, but when I notice a movie giving credits to a book, my expectations go up. To a smaller degree, that also applies to "Based on actual events," although that often signals something sappy or patriotic. If a movie is based on a book, I assume it is to capitalize on some degree of broad based acclaim, and wasn't cobbled together by some Director who just wanted to make a movie. "Based on a book," doesn't guarantee the movie will be any good, however, because Directors can be known to turn something good into something dull and uninteresting, but an interesting book is a good place to start.
Actually, that is a pretty good reason. A book has to tell a story without pictures, so there is more internal dialogue. Which is easy to translate into a script.
A bit convoluted, but when the movie '2001' came to the university theater, I had read the book first (based on the movie). So at least I had some idea what was going on toward the end. My friends thought I was a movie genius...
"Well, sure, man, the baby represents the self-image of the monolith-advanced David Bowman, obviously; come to remake the Earth"...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 11:48:36 AM
Actually, that is a pretty good reason. A book has to tell a story without pictures, so there is more internal dialogue. Which is easy to translate into a script.
A bit convoluted, but when the movie '2001' came to the university theater, I had read the book first (based on the movie). So at least I had some idea what was going on toward the end. My friends thought I was a movie genius...
"Well, sure, man, the baby represents the self-image of the monolith-advanced David Bowman, obviously; come to remake the Earth"...
Yeah, I remember inquiring about that too. I can't remember the explanation. I just remember that it didn't make any sense to me.
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 12:07:16 PM
Yeah, I remember inquiring about that too. I can't remember the explanation. I just remember that it didn't make any sense to me.
Well, watching 2001 in 1970, we were all stoned anyway. Nothing HAD to make any sense.
But OMG even better was the Night on Bald Mountain sequence of Fantasia WICKEDLY GREAT!!!
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 12:07:16 PM
Yeah, I remember inquiring about that too. I can't remember the explanation. I just remember that it didn't make any sense to me.
My dad took me to see it in its original theatrical run, in Cinerama. I was four. I loved it. I will not pretend I understood it, but I loved it. :)
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2017, 10:43:50 AM
"All You Zombies" is about the only Heinlein story I ever liked. Otherwise he leaves me flat.
Cool. There are authors I'm uninlovewith. But have you read "By His Bootstraps"?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:19:13 PM
Well, watching 2001 in 1970, we were all stoned anyway. Nothing HAD to make any sense.
But OMG even better was the Night on Bald Mountain sequence of Fantasia WICKEDLY GREAT!!!
They had to put that in the movie to "balance" the dinosaur sequence.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 11:48:36 AM
Actually, that is a pretty good reason. A book has to tell a story without pictures, so there is more internal dialogue. Which is easy to translate into a script.
A bit convoluted, but when the movie '2001' came to the university theater, I had read the book first (based on the movie). So at least I had some idea what was going on toward the end. My friends thought I was a movie genius...
"Well, sure, man, the baby represents the self-image of the monolith-advanced David Bowman, obviously; come to remake the Earth"...
People have told me that the movie "left out the part where the baby explodes all the nukes on Earth at once."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2017, 12:28:37 PM
They had to put that in the movie to "balance" the dinosaur sequence.
I remember reading how the illustrators of the other sequences saw the first cut of Night on Bald Mountain and went back to the drawing boards humiliated and in awe...
And BTW, I have the Fantasia tape version with the "naked" centaurgirls! AND one still in the original wrapper.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:36:59 PM
I remember reading how the illustrators of the other sequences saw the first cut of Night on Bald Mountain and went back to the drawing boards humiliated and in awe...
And BTW, I have the Fantasia tape version with the "naked" centaurgirls! AND one still in the original wrapper.
This "tape" you speak of...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:19:13 PM
Well, watching 2001 in 1970, we were all stoned anyway. Nothing HAD to make any sense.
I remember that. I knew nothing about the movie. Never even knew what was playing at the theater that night, but a friend dragged me to it. He said we have to smoke a couple doobies first. I didn't have a problem with that, so we got stoned and went. The movie blew my mind. It probably would have blown my mind without the doobie. Well, I think it would have. But who would know... or care at that point?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2017, 12:27:44 PM
Cool. There are authors I'm uninlovewith. But have you read "By His Bootstraps"?
Can't say I have, no. I have gone through 'And He Built A Crooked House', which failed to live up to its hype, and had similar reactions to other shorts ("The Green Hills of Earth", "The Roads Must Roll"...)
Of the Big Three, I have always preferred Asimov and Clarke.
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 12:45:41 PM
I remember that. I knew nothing about the movie. Never even knew what was playing at the theater that night, but a friend dragged me to it. He said we have to smoke a couple doobies first. I didn't have a problem with that, so we got stoned and went. The movie blew my mind. It probably would have blown my mind without the doobie. Well, I think it would have. But who would know... or care at that point?
LOL! They had us at the apes tossing the bones. We were toast after that. Our campus movie theater only had rows of "cafeteria chairs". Its a wonder we even stayed upright. Come to think of, maybe we didn't.
OMG, that reminds me of 'Wait Until Dark' or some title like that. A horror movie. Blind woman and some scary creep. There is a scene where she thinks she has killed him. The music even winds down like it's the end of the movie, AND HE JUMPS OUT FROM BEHIND THE REFRIGERATOR AT HER!
We used to stand at the back of the "theater" (it was free) and laugh uproariously when the new viewers fell backwards out of the loose chairs in surprise.
We did not exactly have an adult sense of humor then...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:58:31 PM
'Wait Until Dark' or some title like that. A horror movie. Blind woman and some scary creep. There is a scene where she thinks she has killed him. The music even winds down like it's the end of the movie, AND HE JUMPS OUT FROM BEHIND THE REFRIGERATOR AT HER!
As I recall, that movie was based on a play. And 90% of the movie was filmed on just one set. The movie was creepy, and that one scene is probably the most powerful jump scare ever. At least it was at the time. I watched the movie years later, and it wasn't so bad the second time. I wonder if anyone had a heart attack after that scene?
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 01:21:03 PM
As I recall, that movie was based on a play. And 90% of the movie was filmed on just one set. The movie was creepy, and that one scene is probably the most powerful jump scare ever. At least it was at the time. I watched the movie years later, and it wasn't so bad the second time. I wonder if anyone had a heart attack after that scene?
More likely some sprained ankles or backs...