Movie Scenes

Post your favorite movie scenes.

One of the most touching scenes in the entire movie.
A final lament on lost memories and moments that are gone forever.

Epigraph on a lost generation of men.
Manhood remembering itself.

Primal Forces of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffbxXf0tqU&feature=related

It gives me a sense of deja vu.

I know it's a movie about vampires, which is fantasy, but i love the acting in this movie. I consider it a drama anyway, rather than a horror movie. Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise were just brilliant.

Louis also represents someone who can't accept his own nature. He hates himself as a vampire.

The film is also another moralistic ploy.

The one accepting his difference, his superiority, suffers greatly, though in the end he survives.
The other cannot accept his superiority; he cannot stop thinking of his prey as if they were of his own kind.
he would rather kill rats and dogs...because he is still "human" in his mind.

Here we see this tribe within a tribe.
We already know it occurs with the Bilderberg Group and the Royals and cults in general; from the past, with the Free Masons and the Illuminati....the Christian Church, no matter its denomination, can be considered an elitist group....as are the Jews.

But what are the masses sold?
The ego is bad; to discriminate is evil; to feel superior is vanity.

It is sold the lie of humanity.

Natural selection is NOT about humanity.

Satyr wrote:

The film is also another moralistic ploy.

The one accepting his difference, his superiority, suffers greatly, though in the end he survives.
The other cannot accept his superiority; he cannot stop thinking of his prey as if they were of his own kind.
he would rather kill rats and dogs...because he is still "human" in his mind.

The ego is bad; to discriminate is evil; to feel superior is vanity.

Yeah, and if you ARE powerful than you should not be allowed to show it. I hate liberalism. lol

I also like how Lestat is someone who doesn't care to change himself or lament over what he is. In many ways he rejoices in his nature. He has nothing to teach Louis or Claudia, (Kirstin Dunst), and he leaves them to thier own devices. and they can't handle it. They are weak.

Armand, (Antonio Banderas -awesome) sees in Louis a beautiful "weakness" because Louis is frail. He's kind of like a woman in many ways, he makes the decision to become immortal and have all this power, and then he cant deal with the consequences.

Haha, dam, i hate to point out things about womanhood, but it's kind of true!

Equilibrium is another one of my favorites. It's about a kind of "post-human" society, where emotion has been completely controlled and outlawed. It's an extreme form of a utopia where the idea of "progress" is taken to its fullest extent and is meant to be directly related to ridding human nature of "its nature" emotion and feeling.

It's kind of ironic also because in the movie, there are armies of men with guns standing on every corner and they kill and murder anyone who "feels" anything. So murder and war is not gone, it's just been "justified" by the cold nature of logic.

This is a scene where that contradiction is shown. Where Preston kills his friend who has chosen to break the law and "feel human" by reading poetry.

When he shoots him through the book, i think it symbolizes that real "thought" which is creative and passionate, comes into conflict against "empty thought" which is mindless. Christian Bale was awesome in the batman series, but sometimes people forget how great he was in his older movies like this one.

I love him.

Not a film clip, but a trailer. A sheltered retard goes off to save nature... and gets what he deserves.

Recidivist wrote:

Oh yeah, i have actually seen this movie and i know about this guy. A tree-hugging fruitcake that thinks nature is supposed to be loving and free.

He is a real example of how modern people live in their own minds and romanticize nature as being anything but cruel. It would have been different if he had this kind of naive mindset and went into the wild and actually LEARNED that it was brutal, but his childish beliefs still didn't change, even after going back year after year, which makes him, like you said, a retard. lol.

some of the video he filmed was pretty cool though. i have to give him that.

Satyr wrote:

I'm really interested in the Joker's maxim of "Why so serious."

What does it really mean? Does it imply that humanity is bent on being anything but passionate or that we live in an age where obedience is the ultimate value?

Maybe, someone else can tell me more about it.

This is really a music video, but for some reason it is hard to find good clips of Hannibal Lectors movies on you tube. i dont know why, it's like one of the best series ever. But whatever.

This is a good montage of him and will.

In Red Dragon, i like when Will meets Hannibal in the prison and they are walking together when he is chained. And what stands out to me is what Hannibal says to Will: "You sensed who i was back when i was committing what you call my "crimes"."

Meaning that his "crimes" were considered crimes not because they were, but because they went against the law and the sheep. I think in many ways, Will is open to considering this and his place as an "upholder of law", because he respects Hannibal's thoughts and there is even a sense that he doubts his own place as a cop.

Third-eye wrote:

I'm really interested in the Joker's maxim of "Why so serious."

What does it really mean? Does it imply that humanity is bent on being anything but passionate or that we live in an age where obedience is the ultimate value?

Maybe, someone else can tell me more about it.

The ultimate nihilistic phrase exemplifying the meaninglessness of existence.

The other side of the tragedy coin....comedy.
Dionysian laughter in the face of Apollo's beautiful order; the mockery of those in authority; laughing against those with power; a feminine scoffing before masculinity.

Chaos for its own sake; chaos desired by those with the least to lose; the meek avenging themselves against those who oppress them and remind them of what and who they are.

---------------------

Third-eye wrote:

In
Red Dragon, i like when Will meets Hannibal in the prison and they are
walking together when he is chained. And what stands out to me is what
Hannibal says to Will: "You sensed who i was back when i was committing
what you call my "crimes"."

Meaning that his "crimes" were
considered crimes not because they were, but because they went against
the law and the sheep. I think in many ways, Will is open to
considering this and his place as an "upholder of law", because he
respects Hannibal's thoughts and there is even a sense that he doubts
his own place as a cop.

this is a theme that runs across all the Hannibal movies.

With Sterling it take son a sexual undertone.
She is "like" Lecter but she serves those she does not respect nor is appreciated by because of a misdirected sense of loyalty or an identification with the herd.

Will, and then Sterling, are buried within Judeo-Christian morality or modernity's meme.
They can catch Lecter because they can empathize; they being as he is, only to a lesser degree and indoctrinated.

Lecter wishes to "free" them from their chains with these innuendos.

"How did you catch me?" he asks Will.
With Sterling it's about releasing her from her father's memory; from her father's morality.




----------------------------

Recidivist wrote:

Not a film clip, but a trailer. A sheltered retard goes off to save nature... and gets what he deserves.

Now here is an example of a classic liberal moron.
The bears have become a projection of his own naive simplicity.

Nature can do no harm to kindness, to love, these imbeciles tell themselves and are constantly reminded of their own error....but they never learn.
Faith has an inborn defensive mechanism against anything that exceeds its premises.

Take these anarchists....a branch of the same mindset.
In an anarchists mind the chaos, the coldness of nature is denied or it is embraced as a death-wish.
When it is denied it take son the form of idealism where the coming anarchy can only result in their ascent.

Satyr wrote:

this is a theme that runs across all the Hannibal movies.

With Sterling it take son a sexual undertone.
She is "like" Lecter but she serves those she does not respect nor is appreciated by because of a misdirected sense of loyalty or an identification with the herd.

Will, and then Sterling, are buried within Judeo-Christian morality or modernity's meme.
They can catch Lecter because they can empathize; they being as he is, only to a lesser degree and indoctrinated.

Lecter wishes to "free" them from their chains with these innuendos.

"How did you catch me?" he asks Will.
With Sterling it's about releasing her from her father's memory; from her father's morality.

But maybe he cant free them.
what i don't understand, is why doesn't Hannibal either kill her or forget about her?
For example, Lector tells Clarisse that she loves the FBI bureau almost more than the "husband and children that she gave up to it". Meaning that she hates her past and her own identity and her own life so much that she has chosen to completely immerse herself in mindless success in a career and service to authority and recognition because she has nothing else inside of her to nurture.

In other words, she is a total lost cause even if she is a little like Hannibal, like you said. She is too far gone. She can't be changed. Doesn't Hannibal realize this? So he would be better off just eating her, rather than continue to suffer her stupid stubborn attempts at catching him for the FBI. Like the way she pathetically tries over and over again to hit him or gain some advantage over him to arrest him when they are eating at the dinner table. It's like she is so blindly loyal to social justice, that she doesn't even understand WHY she even wants to catch him. She's just giving into conditioned reactions from her faith in law enforcement.

I mean he chops off his own hand for her. i probably would have just killed her, and THEN cut off my hand. lol

I guess what im saying is that, even if Will and Clarisse are special to him, they are still nothing more than servants of authority.

One of my all time favorite scenes.

I do not remember which, but one of Third-Eye's videos led me to a clip from Troy where Hector ends up fighting Achilles.



The woman towards the end cries only for the death of that which she's invested her life in. Would she grant the same grievance if Achilles was killed? No and in fact she may have even celebrated it. What isn't seen is just before when she pleaded with Hector to stay but it fell upon deaf ears, which she should've known the moment she first witnessed his noble spirit.
The intended harrowing feeling that was brought from the scene of Hector's death could only be justified in two ways:
1) If Hector's youth had not fully granted him the potential he'd otherwise have to defeat Achilles.
2) If Achilles was not meant to be of the natural realm and was given a divine (artificial) power which he would not pass on to another but instead were to only destroy what man has created and leaves no order or unity which could continue humanity's resistance to entropy.

The latter is certainly possible. Indeed, as true to the mythology, Achilles did not see himself as Hector's equal but less so. We can see this when he makes a distinction between Hector as man and Achilles as a lion. For Achilles, his genes did not grant him this power to destroy the man, but a supernatural event that would be likely unreproducible for his lineage.

Granted with this supernatural power, Achilles does not see to reason with Hector that he might forgive him for his foolish mistake (which he regretted) but instead, empowered, he holds on to the idea that Hector intended the death of the boy he confused with Achilles. I suspect this rationalization came from an inability for Achilles to cope with the responsibility he knows deep down lies with himself that the younger died. Without this rationalization, he might have to explore the reasons why he felt so attached to the younger one and that this hatred consumes him. Instead, he kills Hector and tells himself that the issue has been fully settled.

Third-eye wrote:

But maybe he cant free them.
what i don't understand, is why doesn't Hannibal either kill her or forget about her?

Perhaps it's because you've bought into Lecter's inhumanity.
He is the most human person in the movie; the most noble spirit.

He kills to rid the world of what confronts his aesthetic tastes; he cleanses the world of garbage.


But he is lonely, as he is rare.

With Will he sees a kindred spirit which he exceeds but that reminds him of himself.
He tells Will this so as to gain an advantage by flustering him.

With Clarisse there's the sexual element. With her he senses potential; a mate.

Third-eye wrote:

For example, Lector tells Clarisse that she loves the FBI bureau almost more than the "husband and children that she gave up to it". Meaning that she hates her past and her own identity and her own life so much that she has chosen to completely immerse herself in mindless success in a career and service to authority and recognition because she has nothing else inside of her to nurture.

She's institutionalized.

Third-eye wrote:

In other words, she is a total lost cause even if she is a little like Hannibal, like you said. She is too far gone. She can't be changed. Doesn't Hannibal realize this?

You should read the books rather than going by the Hollywood ending they provided for you.
In the movie they give it a twist which returns you to the social conventions: evil pays a price; it is maimed, unloved, defeated, though he escapes.

In Harris' books the ending is very different.
Hannibal does not only not lose a hand but Clarisse runs away with him to South America.
The black orderly bumps into him in an opera house in Argentina where he has gone for his honeymoon, which he's combined with his quet to see all of Vermeer's works.

He sees Hannibal from behind and hides....pulling his wife out of the opera house and away.
He knows that if Hannibal sees him and Sterling - because she is there next to Lecter - he is as good as dead.

Third-eye wrote:

I mean he chops off his own hand for her. i probably would have just killed her, and THEN cut off my hand. lol

See, this is where Hollywood steps in to sell you the cultural lie.

Third-eye wrote:

I guess what im saying is that, even if Will and Clarisse are special to him, they are still nothing more than servants of authority.

Will, yes...but with him Lecter is not interested in freeing him from servitude. He only wishes to take him off his game by reminding him that, despite himself, he is far more animistic than he would like to believe.

With Sterling it is sexual.
He wants to be her father figure, with Freudian undertones.
She has lost her father to the "job". She is becoming dissilusioned by the F.B.I.'s practices.
She feels more similar to Hannibal than her own fellow officers.

They try to scapegoat her...and she turns on them.
In the book she runs off with Hannibal.

Fuck the Hollywood ending.
That's part of the brainwashing.

Slaughtz wrote:

The woman towards the end cries only for the death of that which she's invested her life in. Would she grant the same grievance if Achilles was killed? No and in fact she may have even celebrated it. What isn't seen is just before when she pleaded with Hector to stay but it fell upon deaf ears, which she should've known the moment she first witnessed his noble spirit.
The intended harrowing feeling that was brought from the scene of Hector's death could only be justified in two ways:
1) If Hector's youth had not fully granted him the potential he'd otherwise have to defeat Achilles.
2) If Achilles was not meant to be of the natural realm and was given a divine (artificial) power which he would not pass on to another but instead were to only destroy what man has created and leaves no order or unity which could continue humanity's resistance to entropy.

The latter is certainly possible. Indeed, as true to the mythology, Achilles did not see himself as Hector's equal but less so. We can see this when he makes a distinction between Hector as man and Achilles as a lion. For Achilles, his genes did not grant him this power to destroy the man, but a supernatural event that would be likely unreproducible for his lineage.

Granted with this supernatural power, Achilles does not see to reason with Hector that he might forgive him for his foolish mistake (which he regretted) but instead, empowered, he holds on to the idea that Hector intended the death of the boy he confused with Achilles. I suspect this rationalization came from an inability for Achilles to cope with the responsibility he knows deep down lies with himself that the younger died. Without this rationalization, he might have to explore the reasons why he felt so attached to the younger one and that this hatred consumes him. Instead, he kills Hector and tells himself that the issue has been fully settled.

Excellent.

I think it's interesting that John Doe chose Mills for his mission to exemplify human evil. He knew Mills had a tendency to go against his beliefs as a cop and give into his nature. He knew who Mills was on a personal level, and he knew his simple-mindedness was a mark of his instinctual proclivities.

He saw this is Mills, and thats why he chose not to kill him earlier in the movie. But the message here is that most people are simple-minded and give into their nature and go against everything they believe in for some kind of instantaneous gratification or another, and that the "7 deadly sins" are just superficial labels that religion sticks on human nature for just being what it is.

John Doe actually mocks the superstition of these sins, by using people he knew would succumb to them.

If God tests human beings in good and evil situations, than John Doe is doing the same thing. He considers himself God in a way. Maybe this is why he says "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

.

.

.

I really enjoyed Shawshank Redemption as well. Looking at these scenes again from a different perspective, I had some thoughts on its message.

It looks like they're selling the idea that justice will come if you are 'good' and if you are 'bad.' It sells that even the wardens get in trouble, which in reality they never do. Likewise, in reality, barely anyone ever escapes from prison. The way I was interpreting it was that if you are truly innocent and good (deserving) then you will be 'blessed' with a way out (i.e. Morgan talking about how his wings were too 'colorful' to be kept in jail.)

There's many other nihilistic messages in just those clips alone. Of course, they are just bits of a larger and more obvious story about the spectacular.

Wardens know there is a 1 in a million chance this happens, so I imagine any warden watching this film that participates in the same behaviors would find it hilarious.

A favorite scene from one of my favorite movies, "Perfume" The Story of a Murderer.



Not even his superhuman smell could save him from the void.

I would love to digest this film and this scene, but I haven't the courage, discipline or intellect now to do so. And I may never.

Why do you like it so much?
Be honest.
What about this movie and that scene touches you?

Satyr wrote:

Why do you like it so much?
Be honest.
What about this movie and that scene touches you?

I wondered that myself and found that I perhaps felt some sort of sadistic pleasure seeing it, seeing someone experience the misery I fashion myself to. As for the movie, it speaks about

Spoiler:

I think the boy in the film hates his life. Thinking any deeper about it, what it says about me, is difficult for me.