Post: #226

Last night watched one of my all time favorites, Last of the Mohicans. Cora is pathetically pursued by the supplicating white knight Duncan while she longs for the attention of the rugged and aloof Hawkeye. The combination of the dichotomy of the two male leads, epic vistas, a stirring score, and brutal violence is as red pill as anything Ive seen in film. Girls respond very favorably to it.

Post: #227

^^ I remember that movie having an excellent soundtrack and superb cinematography. But besides that the plot fell flat for me at some point.

I should watch it again though. Seriously the music in that film gives me the chills.

Post: #228

Glengarry Glenn Ross. For a film in which, on the surface at least, hardly anything happens, it's full to the brim with badassery. And not just in the watched-to-death ABC speech with Alec Baldwin, but pretty much any second that Pacino is on screen.

The two groups of men, starkly juxtaposed against each other, those who can - Roma and Blake - and those who can't - Levine and Ross - who blame everything and everyone but themselves for their failings. Swearing aside, it would be instructional for one's sons to watch GGR, so that they may take note of these two groups and learn to spot such weakness - whether in themselves or their colleagues - as well as those who can back up everything they say with their results.

And, finally, the cast, with nary a makeweight among them.

Post: #229

Just watched Embrace of the Serpent. Fantastic movie. Rated 8.0 on imbd and 98% on rottentomatoes. It recounts two explorers paths in the Colombian amazon, particularly searching for a mythical plant called yakruna(likened to modern day ayahuasca), in the late 1800s to mid 1900s. The two explorers were actual historical figures that wrote diaries about their encounters with indigenous tribes. Majority of movie is shot in black and white and the plot jumps between two major narratives that mirror each other. The movie touches on a lot of themes that we hold dear to us here on the forum; social belonging, cultural decline, masculinity, interaction with nature, lack of rites of passage, travel & exploration etc.. It is a bit slow at times but nonetheless would give this movie my highest seal of recommendation. I'll leave the trailer below.

Post: #230

I've started doing these little weekly reviews again, if anyone's interested:

https://qcurtius.com/2016/09/25/sunday-f...p-9252016/

Post: #231

I had a blast watching a long post poned duty of mine: " Boogie el aceitoso".
Based on the comic strip by the magnificent Fontanarrosa (a great role figure to many Spanish speaking comic makers such as myself).
God, it was like being 8 years old again reading pulp comics sprinkled with ultraviolence, manliness and philosophical pearls!

If you can find a substitled version or you are comfortable listening to a fairly neutral spanish (for us it's kind if funny when we hear fellow Argentinians using a "Mexican dub accent") and/or you are familiar with the late Fontanarrosa's drawing style it is a feast.

The story is that Boogie is an aging nam veteran who' s mercked on prerry much every belic third world battle theater of the cold war and since its end has been working as a hit man for hire.
The rest is fun and pure violent fun...

Post: #232

(09-04-2016 01:25 PM)Adonis Wrote:  Last night watched one of my all time favorites, Last of the Mohicans. Cora is pathetically pursued by the supplicating white knight Duncan while she longs for the attention of the rugged and aloof Hawkeye. The combination of the dichotomy of the two male leads, epic vistas, a stirring score, and brutal violence is as red pill as anything Ive seen in film. Girls respond very favorably to it.

Just after seeing the thumbnail soundtrack started playing in my head. Amazing movie. One of my top 5 favorite movies.

Post: #233

I just watched "Fail Safe" on TCM. I was aware of its existence but had not yet seen it. On the whole, not bad, not outstanding, but compelling enough to watch all the way through. I think the most fascinating and intriguing thing about the movie is that it is pretty much exactly "Dr. Strangelove" but as a drama/thriller, not a comedy. Having seen Dr. Strangelove countless times over the years, it is hard to judge "Fail Safe" on its own.

Apparently Kubrick took legal action against the studio to prevent them from releasing it before his film.

Post: #234

The truth is, I watch movies differently now than I used to. Instead of watching them purely for entertainment -- I now examine them for examples of red pill philosophy as well...and surprisingly there's quite a lot to be found in a movie about a womanizing male hairdresser in "Shampoo".

"Shampoo" is 1975 film starring Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn, Jack Warden and a very young Carrie Fisher.

[attachment=33916]

"Shampoo" on IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073692/

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

"Shampoo" was written by Robert Towne, and was loosely based on "The Country Wife," a Restoration comedy written in 1675 by William Wycherley, whose protagonist Horner feigns impotence in order to be allowed into the company of married women, who he then seduces. Beatty's character in "Shampoo" is considered non-threatening due to the stereotype that male hairdressers are gay, even though he spends nearly the entire movie banging every chick he comes into contact with.

Here are some comments from Robert Towne, the film's screenwriter, on his inspiration to write "Shampoo":

Quote:"I was going with a beautiful girl, a dancer – in fact, Fred Astaire’s last dancing partner. She was also an actress, but mainly a dancer. Anyway, she had been married, which I didn’t find out right away. I was twenty-three, and it was very unusual at the time for your girlfriend to have been divorced. She told me his name. Gene Shacove. I asked what he did. She said he was a hairdresser. It shocked the shit out of me, that such a beautiful girl would marry a hairdresser. Or that a hairdresser would marry a girl. Both were shocking. I asked what happened. She said, “Well, we’d been married about six weeks. He woke up one morning and said, ‘I don’t feel like being married anymore.’ I said, ‘What?!’ then asked what happened to him. She said he had a real successful shop. I asked if she ever saw him. ‘Yeah,’ she said. ‘Every week. He does my hair.’ They were still very good friends."

Towne continues,

"I went down there to pick her up one day. I walked in, and there he was with his hair dryer, going like a bee from one flower to the next. The most beautiful girls, one right after another. I could not believe my eyes. The only rooster in the hen house. It was a revelation to me. Then I found other guys, like Dusty Fleming, who did the same. A whole subculture of wildly heterosexual guys with a great sense of design, who worked on human heads instead of pieces of paper. I was fascinated by it, thought it was a terrific subject."

Towne says that his script for the film was largely influenced by Jean Renoir’s La Règle du Jeu (1939). According to the sleeve notes for the Cinema Club video version of the film, the story was indeed based on hairdresser Gene Shacove, who served as a technical consultant on the film. It also played on men’s views of hairdressers as effete, consequently allowing them access to their most private chambers.

“What other guy gets regularly into the bedrooms and bathrooms of another guy’s wife?” said Shacove. “You’re working in close contact with a woman. All that touching and you make them beautiful, so they admire you. It’s women who seduce their hairdressers, not the other way around.”

Towne says that Beatty wanted to do a movie about a compulsive Don Juan. He believed he’d had What’s New Pussycat stolen [the title was the phrase Beatty used when calling his friends, including Charlie Feldman, the producer of that film] […] He asked how I would do it. I said that I’d do it somewhat like The Country Wife […] Warren said he thought that that was interesting, and asked how it would be done. “Would you use an actor who everybody thought was gay?” I told him I’d use a hairdresser. He looked at me. It took him about thirty seconds. He said, “You’re right.”

Here are a few of my own personal observations of the film -- there are some great red pill takeaways:

Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks: George Roundy (Warren Beatty) versus Lester Karpf (Jack Warden)

[attachment=33917]

Social Proof/Kitty Cats Compete: Women want George because other women want George. This plays out over and over again in the film. George himself doesn't really have to do much to seduce these women -- in his world, the highly feminized/homosexual world of hairdressing, a straight man is able to come out looking alpha and socially dominant quite easily.

[attachment=33918]

Don't Chase 'Em/Replace 'Em: Seemingly George's modus operandi until he develops one-itis for one of his former lovers who is now involved with a married man.

[attachment=33919]

One-itis: Self-explanatory.

Female Hypergamy: Jackie (Julie Christie) doesn't mind having a fling with alpha George (Warren Beatty) but knows she will never have financial or sexual security with George and ultimately runs off with Lester. (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks)

[attachment=33920]

Keep Two in the Kitty: Even though George is tapping Jill, a young actress played by Goldie Hawn, he obviously isn't interested in being a "kept man" and is still laying pipe on the side.

[attachment=33921]

TL;DR: I recommend watching "Shampoo". As I see it, it's a film which showcases what can happen when a player develops one-itis. The film ends on a somewhat somber note, but in reality, you know Beatty's character will live to fuck another day. In time, he'll laugh at himself for foolishly falling for a girl just because she's now become unavailable to him.

[attachment=33922]

I first discussed this movie on RVF here (/thread-58423...pid1400988) but figured I would post again here since this thread specifically deals with movies.

Post: #235

I went to see Inferno (Da Vinci Code 3) yesterday.

The TL-DR version is that it's shit. Rubbish. Do not waste your money.

Here's the breakdown avoiding any serious spoilers. The movie turns you off from less than ten minutes in when the big plot twist becomes instantly obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80. You will see it coming a mile away.

The plot is that a billionaire lunatic who rails against global overpopulation has created a supervirus and despite being killed in the opening scene he's set it to be released at a later date. Tom Hanks is obviously charged with preventing this by deciphering a series of clues that will lead to the site of the imminent release.

Straight off the bat the movie goes into a very slick video of this billionaire talking about how global overpopulation is at a 'one-minute-to-midnight' level and something has to be done to stop it (instantly my tin foil hat was out).

Enter roving black ops teams of armed World Health Organisation goons with "wave my credentials at anything" power to co-opt the local police at the drop of a hat. Never fear. The heroes seem to largely get past them all by casually jogging from place to place. I guess Hanks is getting pretty old.

Unlike the previous two movies, the tie-ins to European cultural heritage are just tossed at the viewer like pieces of wet pizza. By half time it just seems like they're reading shit off of a menu at an Italian restaurant for pure wank factor.

Generally speaking the dead billionaire lunatic is portrayed very sympathetically with several more slick "anti-population" videos trotted out throughout the rest of the movie. To the degree in fact that I was left with the strong impression that the movie was the backdrop for the anti-population message rather than vice versa.

Regardless, this film plays out more like a fumbling doomsday spy movie than a Da Vinci Code franchise and has no place in the series. It creates dead-ends out of red herrings that leave you thinking you missed something when in reality the script was just haggard, lazy and riddled with plot-holes and loose ends.

I rate this movie four turds out of five.

p.s. I couldn't find the other movie thread so I put this review here instead.

Post: #236

(10-14-2016 06:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I went to see Inferno (Da Vinci Code 3) yesterday.

The TL-DR version is that it's shit. Rubbish. Do not waste your money.

Here's the breakdown avoiding any serious spoilers. The movie turns you off from less than ten minutes in when the big plot twist becomes instantly obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80. You will see it coming a mile away.

The plot is that a billionaire lunatic who rails against global overpopulation has created a supervirus and despite being killed in the opening scene he's set it to be released at a later date. Tom Hanks is obviously charged with preventing this by deciphering a series of clues that will lead to the site of the imminent release.

Straight off the bat the movie goes into a very slick video of this billionaire talking about how global overpopulation is at a 'one-minute-to-midnight' level and something has to be done to stop it (instantly my tin foil hat was out).

Enter roving black ops teams of armed World Health Organisation goons with "wave my credentials at anything" power to co-opt the local police at the drop of a hat. Never fear. The heroes seem to largely get past them all by casually jogging from place to place. I guess Hanks is getting pretty old.

Unlike the previous two movies, the tie-ins to European cultural heritage are just tossed at the viewer like pieces of wet pizza. By half time it just seems like they're reading shit off of a menu at an Italian restaurant for pure wank factor.

Generally speaking the dead billionaire lunatic is portrayed very sympathetically with several more slick "anti-population" videos trotted out throughout the rest of the movie. To the degree in fact that I was left with the strong impression that the movie was the backdrop for the anti-population message rather than vice versa.

Regardless, this film plays out more like a fumbling doomsday spy movie than a Da Vinci Code franchise and has no place in the series. It creates dead-ends out of red herrings that leave you thinking you missed something when in reality the script was just haggard, lazy and riddled with plot-holes and loose ends.

I rate this movie four turds out of five.

p.s. I couldn't find the other movie thread so I put this review here instead.

The "four turds out of five" score genuinely made me laugh. Perhaps that should be the default rating system for all shitty movies being pumped out by Hollywood right now. For example, the feminist "Ghostbusters" would HAVE to have a solid five out of five turds.

Post: #237

Adam Curtis just dropped a new documentary. Here is his announcement and description on his blog with a trailer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/en...da423b5df5

Quote:I have a new film going up on iPlayer this Sunday - the 16th. Here’s a background to what the film is about. And a trail.

We live in a time of great uncertainty and confusion. Events keep happening that seem inexplicable and out of control. Donald Trump, Brexit, the War in Syria, the endless migrant crisis, random bomb attacks. And those who are supposed to be in power are paralysed - they have no idea what to do.

This film is the epic story of how we got to this strange place. It explains not only why these chaotic events are happening - but also why we, and our politicians, cannot understand them.

It shows that what has happened is that all of us in the West - not just the politicians and the journalists and the experts, but we ourselves - have retreated into a simplified, and often completely fake version of the world. But because it is all around us we accept it as normal.

Here is the Guardian Review:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio...utin-syria

Quote:Safe in the knowledge that his audience now has the ability to pause and rewind at will, Curtis crafts a mammoth labyrinth of political storytelling in the film, his follow-up to last year’s “war on terror” epic Bitter Lake. Launching on Sunday, his 165-minute opus makes a feature of its sheer unwieldiness, as Curtis veers from social history to conspiracy theory via the odd rambling bar-room anecdote, like a man who’s two-dozen browser tabs into a major Wikipedia binge.

Quote:He argues that an army of technocrats, complacent radicals and Faustian internet entrepreneurs have conspired to create an unreal world; one whose familiar and often comforting details blind us to its total inauthenticity. Not wishing to undersell the concept, Curtis begins the film with a shot of a torch shining limply into a thicket, so that viewers find themselves literally unable to see the wood for the trees.

I believe this was released for the iplayer, only in the UK, but it is available here on thoughtmaybe.com:

http://thoughtmaybe.com/hypernormalisation/

Post: #238

(09-04-2016 01:25 PM)Adonis Wrote:  Last night watched one of my all time favorites, Last of the Mohicans. Cora is pathetically pursued by the supplicating white knight Duncan while she longs for the attention of the rugged and aloof Hawkeye. The combination of the dichotomy of the two male leads, epic vistas, a stirring score, and brutal violence is as red pill as anything Ive seen in film. Girls respond very favorably to it.

Daniel Day Lewis is one hell of an actor.

Post: #239

Watched yesterday "The Departed". Wow, what a movie! I recommend it to all who didn't watch it yet.

Post: #240

I was surprised nobody mentioned Hell or High Water yet. Jeff Bridges has a leading role, so you know it will be worth your time. I was blown away by this film. The cinematography, plot, and Bridges' interaction with his partner were all top notch. I know the SJWs were angry about Sicario, but this film has a whole lot of "Locker Room" talk that will definitely rub people the wrong way.




Highly recommend.

Post: #241

(10-22-2016 03:17 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Watched yesterday "The Departed". Wow, what a movie! I recommend it to all who didn't watch it yet.

The original is a Chinese film called Infernal Affairs.

In my opinion it's better than the Hollywood version, and that's not the yellow fever talking.

Post: #242

Is that movie from 2002? You got me interested, I'll watch it.

Post: #243

(08-28-2016 02:20 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  

(08-24-2016 03:57 PM)UlteriorMotive Wrote:  

Quote:Adam Bell is a Toronto area History college professor. He is a rather somber man, largely because he is stuck in a routine, which includes a relationship with his live-in girlfriend, Mary. While watching a rental movie, he spots an actor in a bit part that looks like him. He becomes obsessed with finding out about this double of his.

Watched this one again tonight and forgot how much I enjoyed it the first time.

I don't want to spoil anything regarding the story for anyone who has not seen it.

I think in a way a lot of us here on the forum can relate to this movie.

Watched this recently after learning about it from this thread. Great movie. Really gets you thinking.

This guy is a hell of an actor. I'm a fan.

Watched a great movie yesterday featuring him - Prisoners (2013). Fantastic investigation thriller, highly recommend.

Quote:When Keller Dover's daughter and her friend go missing, he takes matters into his own hands as the police pursue multiple leads and the pressure mounts. But just how far will this desperate father go to protect his family?

Both him and Ryan Gosling are great for studying mannerisms and picking up some style ideas. He's got a sick hairstyle and pinky ring in Prisoners.

Post: #244

Prisoners was actually a fantastic movie. What it does well is throw you into a situation where the real character of a man is revealed when he is presented with not just a stressful situation, but a terrifying one.

Via Hugh Jackman it asks, what would you do to find your kid? How far would you go? Would your moral code fall apart?

It also goes a bit into the question of evil.

Post: #245

I went and saw a remake of the Clint Eastwood film The Beguiled tonight. Colin Farrel is a civil war soldier that heals his battle wounds at a southern school for girls. He gets all of them in a hissy and they cut his leg off and poison him. The original version was supposedly good. I will have to watch it. I do not recommend this new version.

Post: #246

(10-23-2016 02:17 PM)Ringo Wrote:  

(08-28-2016 02:20 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  

(08-24-2016 03:57 PM)UlteriorMotive Wrote:  

Quote:Adam Bell is a Toronto area History college professor. He is a rather somber man, largely because he is stuck in a routine, which includes a relationship with his live-in girlfriend, Mary. While watching a rental movie, he spots an actor in a bit part that looks like him. He becomes obsessed with finding out about this double of his.

Watched this one again tonight and forgot how much I enjoyed it the first time.

I don't want to spoil anything regarding the story for anyone who has not seen it.

I think in a way a lot of us here on the forum can relate to this movie.

Watched this recently after learning about it from this thread. Great movie. Really gets you thinking.

This guy is a hell of an actor. I'm a fan.

I saw it, it didn't make much sense. What is with the ending? And nothing gets explained...

Post: #247

(07-27-2017 07:23 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 02:17 PM)Ringo Wrote:  

(08-28-2016 02:20 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  

(08-24-2016 03:57 PM)UlteriorMotive Wrote:  

Quote:Adam Bell is a Toronto area History college professor. He is a rather somber man, largely because he is stuck in a routine, which includes a relationship with his live-in girlfriend, Mary. While watching a rental movie, he spots an actor in a bit part that looks like him. He becomes obsessed with finding out about this double of his.

Watched this one again tonight and forgot how much I enjoyed it the first time.

I don't want to spoil anything regarding the story for anyone who has not seen it.

I think in a way a lot of us here on the forum can relate to this movie.

Watched this recently after learning about it from this thread. Great movie. Really gets you thinking.

This guy is a hell of an actor. I'm a fan.

I saw it, it didn't make much sense. What is with the ending? And nothing gets explained...

spoilers ahead.............. The spider web represents his fear of losing his freedom. He sees his wife as a spider in the final scene, because he feels trapped with her.

Post: #248

^ Even so, they never explain why they look identical or what the entire purpose of that storyline was... it was an entertaining movie don't get me wrong, I just felt cheated by it in the end.

Post: #249

This explains it pretty well. The dude doesn't have a doppelgänger. He's mentally ill.