| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Badabing666 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2008
Location: Devon, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
 Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:00 |
|
Voted for Mulholland Drive but liked all the films in the list except for Eraserhead which that is the film that has ever weirded me out. For those that enjoy Memento it might be worth checking out Irreversible although there are two very uncomfortable violent scenes in it.
|
|
|
 |
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:30 |
I only watched a little Memento but I can't remember if I watched it correctly. 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 15:48 |
|
Inception wasn't particularly puzzling. I liked the ending actually, pretty clever
|
|
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 15:49 |
|
2001 hands down. Don't watch that Jjupiter sequence on bad drugs.
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 18:23 |
Wow, there are some intellectual ideas on some of those films and I read all the posts a few times as the posts themselves are rather cryptic in places.
I want to watch Primer now and some of these other suggestions, but I hope they are not full of horrific images or count me out!
Checked 'Irreversible' clips on youtube and was horrified - that is definitely some extreme violence, esp that fire hydrant scene (  ) |
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 18:36 |
 Slartibartfast wrote:
Of these I went for Eraserhead. But I love puzzling films. Lynch has a real tallent for that. Gilliam, too. |
Its interesting you mention Gilliam
I watched Fisher King and it is perhaps the only movie I switched off as I could not understand any of it and didnt want to!
I have 12 Monkeys but havent seen it yet, I will soon, cos I heard it was a weird one.
I love Brazil and would have to mention that for seer weirdness and very powerful ending that never sat with me well.
Some of the films in the list I put up on the poll have images I cant get out of myhead - I think they have a psychological impact on the viewer.
Heres a list of the most powerful images on my psyche:
Eraserhead - the baby crying, the girl in the radiator and her haunting song, the head falling off, the god figure pulling levers, the exploding planet, the twitching chickens.
Mulholland Drive - the little elf like person, the sisters discovery scene, 'Crying', the red carpet and curtains.
Inception - the appearance of Cobb's wife in the dream scenes, the spinning top at the end, the folding city.
Memento - the scene where the girl spits in his drink, her conversation about how he will forget everything after she yells obscenities at him, that ending photograph.
The Shining - the mirror image hallways following Danny on the bike, Axed sisters, "Redrum!", Jack stalking Wendy up the stairs, the scene in the bathroom with Grady, the corpse lady, "Heres Johnny!", "Great Party!", The maze, the end photograph.
2001: A Space Odyssey - the bone in the air cut, the monolith on the moon, Hal lip reads, "Open the pod bay doors Hal", Daisy... Daisy, psychedelic slit scans, the old man smashes the glass, the embryo.
Blue Velvet - the mask, Blue curtains, lady with the knife.
Vanilla Sky - "Tech Support!"
Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - May 02 2011 at 18:39
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 18:36 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
I think Eraserhead is a puzzle but that one is based on dream logic which is never logical. I think all these films are based in dream logic when i think about it and that is what makes them puzzling. Dreams are in the irrational and make no sense. |
2001 has no dream in it.
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 18:50 |
TheGazzardian wrote:
In Memento, the black and white scenes happen before all the colour scenes ... if you think of the end of the movie as a pivot, all the black and white scenes move forward in time towards it, while all the colour scenes move backwards in time towards it.
A buddy of mine edited the film so that it played in chronological order and said it was actually pretty boring that way. A pretty interesting comment on how the way a story is told is at least as boring as the story.
SPOILERS!!! The big question in Memento to me has always been: Did Leonard kill his wife, or was Sammy Jenkins real? There were three directors commentary, one where the director said Teddy was lying (Sammy Jenkins was real), one where the director said he was telling the truth (Leonard did kill his wife), and one where he didn't bring it up at all. How's that for a mystery? |
That made sense! Memento loops in a sense around itself! Brilliant film making really and I believe the sp features on the DVD allow one to watch the film in reverse which is a weird experience.
I like the way you see the ending of the next scene and you have no idea why until the next scene plays out. eg: one scene begins with a guy in a pub laughing sardonically. We find out in the next scene which shows he and the bartender spitting in the glass. When the main character who forgets everything in minutes drinks it, the reason for the nasty laugh is apparent. That girl in the film is twisted.
MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!
My idea is having watched it recently is :
Leonard did kill his wife.
Sammy Jenkins was not real.
That makes the movie a more powerful experience - the murderer searching for his wife's murderer - a murder he himself committed but can never remember. the tattoos are therefore designed to set him on a wild goose chase for Sammy Jenkins - a man who does not exist - he will search for SJ eternally therefore and will never know he killed his wife. I cant remember how he got the name Sammy Jenkins - who gave that to him? Whoever it was is the reason the man will always search for a non existent murderer.
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:09 |
Snow Dog wrote:
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
I think Eraserhead is a puzzle but that one is based on dream logic which is never logical. I think all these films are based in dream logic when i think about it and that is what makes them puzzling. Dreams are in the irrational and make no sense. |
2001 has no dream in it. |
I thought perhaps that ending was a dream state - a man who sees himself age - no time restrictions - a white room with sterile floors and ceilings - seems dream like.
Though Kubrick may have invented that room to simply house the man as he gains the ultimate awareness. The room is like a waiting station where Bowman can amass the knowledge that will send him back to earth as an embryo. The nuclear devices and satellites are gone at the end becasue the Starchild has erased them. There is a new dawning of peace where the nuclear devices are now no longer necessary.
The monolith is a teaching tool but it does 4 things in its 4 appearances:
Appearance 1: Dawn of Man - teaches apes to kill to drive out the other apes from the water hole - survive
Appearance 2: Tycho Crater - sends a signal to Jupiter to drive man to visit there to find out why the signal is sent.
Appearance 3: Jupiter - shows the way for Bowman to enter the gate to another universe -
Appearance 4: Renaissance Room - transforms Bowman in to the final phase of existence - a new form of life - the embryo is then sent through the monolith gateway back to Earth to bring peace - nuclear devices are gone - survive.
On each appearance:
The monolith also calls the sentient life forms to it.
The monolith changes in size - huge when it hovers near Jupiter.
It is always in an upright position except near Jupiter it hovers horizontally showing that it can be rotated.
It is always black but has a reflective surface.
Sentient forms are always compelled to touch it. - apes touch it, astronaut Floyd touches it, Bowman reaces out to touch it on his death bed.
It has been analysed by one youtuber who believes the monolith is the cinema screen rotated!
evidence for this includes that we are looking directly at the monolith when the cinema screen is black and we ca hear the monolith calling in its eerie song. (this makes some sense as the scenes are lengthy where the screen is black and we can hear the distinct Monolith song, and therefore the monolith is somewhere - in fact it could be the entire screen! I like this theory).
There are other things that can be said about 2001 - HAL is only one letter shy of IBM - so is this film about the futility of machines - Bowman defeats HAL with a mere screw driver. Power can be shut off if machines try to take over. HAL is only in control when he is looking after the astronauts - as soon as he begins to kill the people in hyper sleep he beeps red like a malfunctioning alarm clock. Computers need a purpose or they cease to function. A heavy thought is that HAL may well represent the insanity of man - or the duality of man - man is born to be barbaric and a killer - the difference is HAL replaces the jawbone, and nuclear device, with deprivation of oxygen as his killer weapon.
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:17 |
I had to post this
concerning 2001 Kubrick has offered a great explanation -
GELMIS: The final scenes of the film seemed more metaphorical than realistic. Will you discuss them -- or would that be part of the "road map" you're trying to avoid?
KUBRICK: No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.
When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.
That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.
GELMIS: What are those areas of meaning?
KUBRICK: They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded. (Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, p. 304.)
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:34 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
I think Eraserhead is a puzzle but that one is based on dream logic which is never logical. I think all these films are based in dream logic when i think about it and that is what makes them puzzling. Dreams are in the irrational and make no sense. |
2001 has no dream in it. |
I thought perhaps that ending was a dream state - a man who sees himself age - no time restrictions - a white room with sterile floors and ceilings - seems dream like.
Though Kubrick may have invented that room to simply house the man as he gains the ultimate awareness. The room is like a waiting station where Bowman can amass the knowledge that will send him back to earth as an embryo. The nuclear devices and satellites are gone at the end becasue the Starchild has erased them. There is a new dawning of peace where the nuclear devices are now no longer necessary.
The monolith is a teaching tool but it does 4 things in its 4 appearances:
Appearance 1: Dawn of Man - teaches apes to kill to drive out the other apes from the water hole - survive
Appearance 2: Tycho Crater - sends a signal to Jupiter to drive man to visit there to find out why the signal is sent.
Appearance 3: Jupiter - shows the way for Bowman to enter the gate to another universe -
Appearance 4: Renaissance Room - transforms Bowman in to the final phase of existence - a new form of life - the embryo is then sent through the monolith gateway back to Earth to bring peace - nuclear devices are gone - survive.
On each appearance:
The monolith also calls the sentient life forms to it.
The monolith changes in size - huge when it hovers near Jupiter.
It is always in an upright position except near Jupiter it hovers horizontally showing that it can be rotated.
It is always black but has a reflective surface.
Sentient forms are always compelled to touch it. - apes touch it, astronaut Floyd touches it, Bowman reaces out to touch it on his death bed.
It has been analysed by one youtuber who believes the monolith is the cinema screen rotated!
evidence for this includes that we are looking directly at the monolith when the cinema screen is black and we ca hear the monolith calling in its eerie song. (this makes some sense as the scenes are lengthy where the screen is black and we can hear the distinct Monolith song, and therefore the monolith is somewhere - in fact it could be the entire screen! I like this theory).
There are other things that can be said about 2001 - HAL is only one letter shy of IBM - so is this film about the futility of machines - Bowman defeats HAL with a mere screw driver. Power can be shut off if machines try to take over. HAL is only in control when he is looking after the astronauts - as soon as he begins to kill the people in hyper sleep he beeps red like a malfunctioning alarm clock. Computers need a purpose or they cease to function. A heavy thought is that HAL may well represent the insanity of man - or the duality of man - man is born to be barbaric and a killer - the difference is HAL replaces the jawbone, and nuclear device, with deprivation of oxygen as his killer weapon.
|
The monolith/cinema screen stuff is all after the event invention - Clarke and Kubrick originally wanted a pyramid, but in the end they thought it looked to cliched.
The monolith on the Moon is a becon to tell its makers that the Earths dominant lifeform has reached a predefined level of technology (ie space flight), of course they expect man to follow the signal.
According to Clarke HAL/IBM is a coincidence.
At the end of the film the Star Child does not neutralise all the nuclear devices - that only happens in the book.
|
|
What?
|
|
TheGazzardian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8582
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:46 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
TheGazzardian wrote:
In Memento, the black and white scenes happen before all the colour scenes ... if you think of the end of the movie as a pivot, all the black and white scenes move forward in time towards it, while all the colour scenes move backwards in time towards it.
A buddy of mine edited the film so that it played in chronological order and said it was actually pretty boring that way. A pretty interesting comment on how the way a story is told is at least as boring as the story.
SPOILERS!!! The big question in Memento to me has always been: Did Leonard kill his wife, or was Sammy Jenkins real? There were three directors commentary, one where the director said Teddy was lying (Sammy Jenkins was real), one where the director said he was telling the truth (Leonard did kill his wife), and one where he didn't bring it up at all. How's that for a mystery? |
That made sense! Memento loops in a sense around itself! Brilliant film making really and I believe the sp features on the DVD allow one to watch the film in reverse which is a weird experience.
I like the way you see the ending of the next scene and you have no idea why until the next scene plays out. eg: one scene begins with a guy in a pub laughing sardonically. We find out in the next scene which shows he and the bartender spitting in the glass. When the main character who forgets everything in minutes drinks it, the reason for the nasty laugh is apparent. That girl in the film is twisted.
MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!
My idea is having watched it recently is :
Leonard did kill his wife.
Sammy Jenkins was not real.
That makes the movie a more powerful experience - the murderer searching for his wife's murderer - a murder he himself committed but can never remember. the tattoos are therefore designed to set him on a wild goose chase for Sammy Jenkins - a man who does not exist - he will search for SJ eternally therefore and will never know he killed his wife. I cant remember how he got the name Sammy Jenkins - who gave that to him? Whoever it was is the reason the man will always search for a non existent murderer. |
I think you got Sammy Jenkins confused with John G. John G is the name of the killer that Leonard found out, it's never explained where he gets that name. Sammy Jenkins was his first insurance claim, the man with a similar condition to his who ended up putting his wife in a coma via insulin overdose, because she didn't believe his condition was real and tried to "fix" him by telling him again and again that she needed her shot.
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:52 |
The finale of 2001 is one of the most fascinating endings in movie history -
1 -= The Renaissance paintings may be simply pictures of natural surroundings showing how the planet Earth may be remmbered if it survives - If the room is based on Bowmans memories, Bowman may be remembering an art gallery he visited. It is a pleasant surrounding the aliens provide to make him feel comfortable as possible given the circumstances.
Bowman is terrified when he first reaches the room - he is trembling. He settles down when he leaves the Pod and explores the room.
2 -= breaking glass - shows the room can still be damaged - death is therefore a reality - this is not an indestructive state and Bowman soon finds he is mortal enough to die in these surroundings - nothing lasts forever, things break and shatter - it may symbolise his fractured mind too - it also serves as a catalyst to make Bowman bend down to then notice the man in the bed behind him. Remember as soon as Bowman sees himself his younger self disappears and the older self takes over. tIME Is irrelevant in this room. It is outside of the restricted parameters of time.
3 -= noises we hear in the background when Bowman enter the room from his spaceship maybe 1 of a few things including:
the aliens chattering amongst themselves
Bowman's fractured mind playing tricks
echoes of the past or future
the sounds of a zoo (Bowmans captive state)
reversed sounds of animals (the apes at the beginning)
angry voices of aliens who are disturbed by Bowman's appearance
excited voices of aliens who are pleased that Bowman had survived the trip and is ready for the final transformation.
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:57 |
TheGazzardian wrote:
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
TheGazzardian wrote:
In Memento, the black and white scenes happen before all the colour scenes ... if you think of the end of the movie as a pivot, all the black and white scenes move forward in time towards it, while all the colour scenes move backwards in time towards it.
A buddy of mine edited the film so that it played in chronological order and said it was actually pretty boring that way. A pretty interesting comment on how the way a story is told is at least as boring as the story.
SPOILERS!!! The big question in Memento to me has always been: Did Leonard kill his wife, or was Sammy Jenkins real? There were three directors commentary, one where the director said Teddy was lying (Sammy Jenkins was real), one where the director said he was telling the truth (Leonard did kill his wife), and one where he didn't bring it up at all. How's that for a mystery? |
That made sense! Memento loops in a sense around itself! Brilliant film making really and I believe the sp features on the DVD allow one to watch the film in reverse which is a weird experience.
I like the way you see the ending of the next scene and you have no idea why until the next scene plays out. eg: one scene begins with a guy in a pub laughing sardonically. We find out in the next scene which shows he and the bartender spitting in the glass. When the main character who forgets everything in minutes drinks it, the reason for the nasty laugh is apparent. That girl in the film is twisted.
MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!
My idea is having watched it recently is :
Leonard did kill his wife.
Sammy Jenkins was not real.
That makes the movie a more powerful experience - the murderer searching for his wife's murderer - a murder he himself committed but can never remember. the tattoos are therefore designed to set him on a wild goose chase for Sammy Jenkins - a man who does not exist - he will search for SJ eternally therefore and will never know he killed his wife. I cant remember how he got the name Sammy Jenkins - who gave that to him? Whoever it was is the reason the man will always search for a non existent murderer. |
I think you got Sammy Jenkins confused with John G. John G is the name of the killer that Leonard found out, it's never explained where he gets that name. Sammy Jenkins was his first insurance claim, the man with a similar condition to his who ended up putting his wife in a coma via insulin overdose, because she didn't believe his condition was real and tried to "fix" him by telling him again and again that she needed her shot. |
I am so confused!  i had to watch those scenes again....
yes thats true John G was in the b & w sequences and I have to believe those as the reality if nothing else. Perhaps all the b & w scenes are the only reliable scenes or do we have what is known as an unrelieable narrator here? How can you rely on the narrative voice of a man who foregts every few minutes?
an interesting experiment is to watch only the black and white scenes in a row... that is truly mind blowing - it is as if the film is pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle. the b & w scenes actually make sense! Its the colour scenes that are reversed and move away form rational logic. hardly any of the characters can be relied upon - they are all deceptive with their own hidden motives and agendas.
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 20:01 |
Dean wrote:
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
I think Eraserhead is a puzzle but that one is based on dream logic which is never logical. I think all these films are based in dream logic when i think about it and that is what makes them puzzling. Dreams are in the irrational and make no sense. |
2001 has no dream in it. |
I thought perhaps that ending was a dream state - a man who sees himself age - no time restrictions - a white room with sterile floors and ceilings - seems dream like.
Though Kubrick may have invented that room to simply house the man as he gains the ultimate awareness. The room is like a waiting station where Bowman can amass the knowledge that will send him back to earth as an embryo. The nuclear devices and satellites are gone at the end becasue the Starchild has erased them. There is a new dawning of peace where the nuclear devices are now no longer necessary.
The monolith is a teaching tool but it does 4 things in its 4 appearances:
Appearance 1: Dawn of Man - teaches apes to kill to drive out the other apes from the water hole - survive
Appearance 2: Tycho Crater - sends a signal to Jupiter to drive man to visit there to find out why the signal is sent.
Appearance 3: Jupiter - shows the way for Bowman to enter the gate to another universe -
Appearance 4: Renaissance Room - transforms Bowman in to the final phase of existence - a new form of life - the embryo is then sent through the monolith gateway back to Earth to bring peace - nuclear devices are gone - survive.
On each appearance:
The monolith also calls the sentient life forms to it.
The monolith changes in size - huge when it hovers near Jupiter.
It is always in an upright position except near Jupiter it hovers horizontally showing that it can be rotated.
It is always black but has a reflective surface.
Sentient forms are always compelled to touch it. - apes touch it, astronaut Floyd touches it, Bowman reaces out to touch it on his death bed.
It has been analysed by one youtuber who believes the monolith is the cinema screen rotated!
evidence for this includes that we are looking directly at the monolith when the cinema screen is black and we ca hear the monolith calling in its eerie song. (this makes some sense as the scenes are lengthy where the screen is black and we can hear the distinct Monolith song, and therefore the monolith is somewhere - in fact it could be the entire screen! I like this theory).
There are other things that can be said about 2001 - HAL is only one letter shy of IBM - so is this film about the futility of machines - Bowman defeats HAL with a mere screw driver. Power can be shut off if machines try to take over. HAL is only in control when he is looking after the astronauts - as soon as he begins to kill the people in hyper sleep he beeps red like a malfunctioning alarm clock. Computers need a purpose or they cease to function. A heavy thought is that HAL may well represent the insanity of man - or the duality of man - man is born to be barbaric and a killer - the difference is HAL replaces the jawbone, and nuclear device, with deprivation of oxygen as his killer weapon.
|
The monolith/cinema screen stuff is all after the event invention - Clarke and Kubrick originally wanted a pyramid, but in the end they thought it looked to cliched.
The monolith on the Moon is a becon to tell its makers that the Earths dominant lifeform has reached a predefined level of technology (ie space flight), of course they expect man to follow the signal.
According to Clarke HAL/IBM is a coincidence.
At the end of the film the Star Child does not neutralise all the nuclear devices - that only happens in the book. |
You are right! I read recently that the pyramid shape was originally going to be used - a different movie if that happened.
This rectangle shape though has some fascinating possibilities... and an amazing analysis here that makes you think...
Part two www.youtube.com 2011 update includes monolith dimensions and details of the working relationship between Clarke and Kubrick. www.youtube ...
by robag88 | 3 years ago | 297,716 views
|
|
|
|
The Monodrone
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 21 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4489
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 20:54 |
|
Mulholland Dr. is by far the mot puzzling movie here. So many interpretations, but many seem quite sound... so which is it? Who knows, and that's what's great about the movie.
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 21:07 |
^^^ thanks for dropping by...
I agree Mulholland is a puzzle itself.
At the premier press conference - the first question was:
"Mr Lynch please explain"
Lynch looked deadpan out at the press and said "its very nice to be here, thankyou for coming along..."
He later released so called clues to the film but they make your noodle bake even hotter....
|
|
|
|
Icarium
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34055
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 01:31 |
does Minority Report qualify as a puzzeling film 
Edited by aginor - May 03 2011 at 01:31
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64701
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 01:52 |
|
No, just a monotonous one
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 07:22 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
2001 hands down. Don't watch that Jjupiter sequence on bad drugs.
|
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most puzzling film ever!