Video: “Day Night Day Night” trailer
posted at 7:14 pm on June 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Thanks to Darnell for this one. A mild surprise for a movie about a terrorist: the protagonist isn’t a Serbian or neo-Nazi. She is, in fact, of unknown ethnicity, possessing no accent, inspired by a cause that’s never named but which compels her to blow herself up in Times Square. I guess we’ll have to wonder. They’re showing this one on a double-bill with the remake of “Schindler’s List,” in which the Jews of Europe are exterminated by an unidentified enemy driven by a murky yet clearly sinister ideology. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
No motive? Going on appearances alone, I’d say she’s a combo of PETA/Kos Kid.
laelaps on June 18, 2007 at 7:20 PM
The guys in masks must really be Catholic nuns with low voices. I totally get it.
Mojave Mark on June 18, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Hm. From the trailer, it seems her last name is Cruz.
Probably has something to do with immigration reform.
Citizen Duck on June 18, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I think she’s an Episcopalian fundamentalist going to blow up a creche that shows a baby Jesus instead of a baby Mohammed.
pedestrian on June 18, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Lets see how many people miss the point of a movie they haven’t seen.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Right on cue, here you are to defend it. You’re twice as predictable as we’ll ever be.
Allahpundit on June 18, 2007 at 7:49 PM
You are the wind beneath my muthafarkin’ wings.
ScottMcC on June 18, 2007 at 7:52 PM
How do you make a whole movie out of that?
aero on June 18, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Oh, you’ve seen the movie? Or are you speaking from the knowledge only a paragraph about the premise could provide?
Let me guess, when you saw United 93 you were made indignant when the filmmakers made it unclear who’s hands were crashing the plane.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Easy. It’s pretty drawn out, but overall it’s a good film.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Read the review on this in NRO a few weeks back. Apparently the whole movie consists of the daily interactions and happenings of the bomber. No judgments are made, no ideologies given. No reasons for anything–just that a woman goes on a suicide bombing mission.
I forgot who reviewed–Sudderman or Hibbs.
robblefarian on June 18, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Well, I’ll grant you it’s probably easy to make a bad film out of that premise. I guess I was asking how one could possibly make a good full-length film out of that.
As for being drawn out, I have a strong suspicion you’re understating it. Even the trailer feels drawn out, so I imagine the film is excruciating in that regard.
aero on June 18, 2007 at 8:01 PM
It is a good full-length film for a couple reasons. The suspense is the main one (you’ve seen Hitchcock movies I’m sure). And thrill is the second (sections of the movie make you almost sweat).
If you don’t like the suspense/thriller genre then you won’t like this movie.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:04 PM
You wouldn’t want to miss the chase seen where two women are in an hour-long knapsack-toting chase scene.
The Netflix reviews have one positive one, presumably from the filmmaker, and the rest confirm one’s suspicions from the trailer, or lack thereof.
pedestrian on June 18, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Nonfactor,
What is the central question of the film, the one that raises the suspense for the audience? It’s unclear from the trailer. My first question would be what would make a young woman want to blow herself up. But (1) I know the answer to that already–Islamic extremism, and (2) apparently that’s not the focus of the film as her ideology goes unnamed and unexplored.
Is it simply that you wonder whether she’ll actually go through with it? Or who else will die? Is it that you wonder if she got all the gunk out from between her toes before she commits her unspeakable act of evil?
Okay, I’m getting a little sarcastic, but I’m sincere in my curiosity.
aero on June 18, 2007 at 8:12 PM
I knew it was liberal propaganda as soon as I saw a critic had called it a “tour de force”.
Whenever a film trailer opens with a slew of accolades from obscure film festivals, it’s safe to assume it’s more a liberal pamphlet than a work of art.
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 8:14 PM
How can one miss the logic of a movie that one hasn’t seen? In order to miss its logic, wouldn’t one have to have actually seen the movie?
baldilocks on June 18, 2007 at 8:20 PM
I’m not curious at all about the motive behind the making or praising of this film. Here’s what it is, pure and simple:
1. Glorifying suicide bombers.
2. Casting the assumption that all suicide bombers are muslims as myth.
Why else make an entire film about a single person committing a single suicide bombing? Why else be so specific that the woman has no discernible accent or ethnicity?
This movie is just another amongst a string of slaps in the face of American common sense by the Hollywood left. It is contemptible and disgusting.
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Yes indeed you are a “nonfactor” if ever there was one, dont you have homework to do.
Viper1 on June 18, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Slight spoilers below.
The central question isn’t the one of “why is she doing this?” Eventually you get lost in the film and no longer care why, you accept the premise of this science fiction shadow group wanting to blow up (or get the girl to blow up) Times Square. The central question of the film that raises the suspense isn’t political at all, it’s like many other movies of the same genre where you care about whether or not the girl will go through with it or not, whether or not she’ll get caught. Believe it or not, it keeps the film moving, and the last 30 minutes is full of some real “edge-of-your-seat” material.
That’s supposed to be what you are asking (and I’ll remind you again spoilers to follow). Is this group blackmailing her? Is this a social experiment by the group? Does she have religious motivations? Why would she want to do this?
Let me reiterate that this is a science fiction film. If the answer were simply “Islamic extremism” the film wouldn’t be enjoyable. If the intention was that this girl wanted to blow herself up because of her religion it would have been obvious–it isn’t, and it isn’t on purpose.
And let me repeat again: if you don’t like suspense movies you will not like this movie. Psycho isn’t about a murder, or at least that’s not what makes the film a classic, it’s the suspense Hitchcock injects in a few of the scenes.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:23 PM
The film holds no “left” or “right” leaning slant to it, and the only political question it asks (and doesn’t answer) is concerning the motivations of people who would blow themselves up in a crowd of people.
Not at all.
Again not true. Both of your “points” about the film are simply (wrong) assumptions.
Suspense. Thrill. Art.
To allow for questions. Does she really want to do this or is she being forced? You couldn’t ask the question “why would someone want to do something not in their own interest” if the answer was “God.”
This from someone who might have watched the trailer and read a blurb about the film and is admittedly “not curious at all” about why the film was made.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Okay, but I think that’s the assumption and the point most of the commenters here are making. Isn’t it beyond silly, even in a “science fiction” scenario (that happens to be set in present-day real New York), to think that there is any other group who sends gullible young women and men to blow themselves up in crowded western cities?
aero on June 18, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Yeah so the point is what, anyone could be a suicide bomber for any reason? Or maybe more to the point, we need to try and understand them somehow?
You contradict yourself here, you say the central question isnt “why is she doing this?” but in the next graf you say we’re supposed to ask ourselves why she would want to blow herself up. huh?
Dash on June 18, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Let me just put it this way: when the movie is over you don’t turn to your friend and engage in a political discussion about suicide bombings or whether or not the girl was a Muslim (that’s reserved for later), but when it’s over you talk about the suspense involved and the possibilities in the plot (those I’ve already posed in previous posts).
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Dude, you really are a tool……
doriangrey on June 18, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Click my name below, or the trackback above, to see the latest post on my blog. I found an article where the writer/director of the film says explicitly what the film is about and WHY she made it.
Give it up. It’s propaganda and the director admits it.
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 8:41 PM
There are a few others in recent history that could qualify: the IRA, the Tokyo subway nuts, and whatever motivations drove the Columbine or VTech killers could presumably by used by some group for their own purposes.
Still, having recently suffered through The Cube, I am in no mood for a two-hourlong tooth extraction for the sake of art. I guess that makes me not a fan of thrillers.
pedestrian on June 18, 2007 at 8:41 PM
It is a suspense movie. I don’t know how I could be any more clear. I’ll use Psycho as a reference again. What was the point of Psycho? To show how dangerous people with split personalities are? Unlikely. The main point of Psycho was to arouse suspense in the audience and show off the camera work of Hitchcock. Sure, you could read into a larger point in both movies, but they are inconsequential.
“Why is she doing this?” is definitely a question that contributes to the suspense, but it isn’t the “central question.” What I said isn’t contradictory at all. If there was one “central question” to this movie it would be “will she do it?” just as if there was one “central question” to Psycho it would be “who is the killer?”
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Aw man, The Cube was a bit horrific, but it was a nice morality play. I don’t mind artsy films as long as they stay true to reality when working morality into the story. It’s poetic justice that the only one to survive was the autistic kid. The Cube could easily have been named Hubris…or Hamartia.
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Okay. I can tell you’re trying hard not to spoil it any further for people who might actually want to watch it. Thanks for engaging in a reasonable discussion about it, though. The trailer didn’t grab my interest and neither did your answers, even though I do like the occasional suspense thriller. I’m pretty convinced that, even if I made it through the movie, I’d probably end up turning to my friend afterwards to discuss how silly it is to try to portray a suicide bomber and/or the people making her do it as anything other than Muslim extremists. Kudos to the filmmakers, I suppose, if they actually managed to overcome that with any non-liberal viewers.
Any conservatives out there actually see this film? Did you make it all the way through without rolling your eyes so much they unscrewed from your head and fell on the theater floor?
aero on June 18, 2007 at 8:46 PM
I say again, the writer/director of the film directly contradicts what you are saying. If you are going to act like the representative of all liberals on this blog, you should at least get your facts straight….
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I don’t know what you’re reading in to what I’m writing but I think I’ve been pretty non-political in my replies.
The director isn’t even talking about the movie in terms of Muslims or religion in the article you link. She’s more familiar with suicide bombings inside or around Russia for motives such as “I’m depressed” or “I broke up with my boyfriend” that the media focuses on. She wanted to make a movie where there are no motives for the media to latch on to and she succeeded.
Ray Bradbury recently stated that Fahrenheit 451 wasn’t about censorship at all, but that doesn’t mean that that isn’t a point one can get from reading the book.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Nonfactor, riddle me this: how can a quote such as this NOT mean she had her own personal political motives in mind:
She wants to “subvert” the idea that females choose to commit suicide bombings because of some external cause, that in fact they do so because of a deeply held belief.
How is that not lending support to the decision to commit mass murder and suicide all in one act?
Have indie film monkeys really run out of topics in which to show women fighting against stereotype? Has it come to this?
The film is propaganda at worst and truly tasteless at best. The fact that you are defending it is both disgusting and proof of why this country of ours is so great. I applaud your willingness to spar with us on such a regular basis, but I question your sanity for the very same reason.
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM
The problem with that is that ‘piskies don’t believe in anything enough to put down the gin, let alone explode for…
TBinSTL on June 18, 2007 at 9:13 PM
No. She wants to “subvert the regular expectations” from the media that women who break up with their boyfriends or can’t get pregnant are the only people who become suicide bombers. The reason why the woman in this movies motives aren’t released is to get past the media posed question of “why.” The expectations she’s talking about are those of the media that women who “can’t get pregnant” become suicide bombers. If you watch our media you’d think that all white girls that go missing wind up dead; if someone made a movie to “subvert” that “regular expectation” would you cry that the director is being political? Spoiler Alert. If you watch the movie you can see that the director doesn’t sympathize with the main character and her actions, rather she simply tells a suspenseful story.
But I do have to congratulate you, unamused. For someone “not curious at all about the motive behind the making the film” you sure are interested.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 9:22 PM
See, without civility, there’s no way to really converse.
unamused on June 18, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Kafka-eqsue is so pre-Islamic terrorist.
Once the Terror from the Koran is extinguished, we can go back to nameless dreads.
Meanwhile, this one has a name:
Jihad.
Those who avoid it are fools, cowards or dipwads.
profitsbeard on June 18, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Nonfactor, as a Film Degree holder, and a long time study of Hitchcock, I’d like to ask that you STOP trying to compare this filmmaker’s work to Hitchcock’s. The filmmaker’s intentions ARE important, and Hitch would NEVER have made this sort of lefty, morally relative, propagandist mental masterbation.
Hitch INVENTED suspense, and yes it was through never showing you the thing you feared…but if this is homage, it’s POOR homage, and is insulting to Hitch’s memory.
And this is no more SCIENCE FICTION than Sopranos is. Get your genre’s straight. Fiction, maybe…but not SCIENCE FICTION.
tickleddragon on June 18, 2007 at 9:40 PM
So you’ve seen the movie?
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I was going to leave that out but I found it too funny to pass up.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Look, I’ve studied enough Art film and enough film in general to be able to read the frame – all that they give me. Her explanations, and the lack of committment to reality, tho not creating a science fiction atmos, tells me all I need to know. She has an agenda, and is not even committed enough to it to present it openly.
There literally is NOTHING new under the sun, and especially on film.
tickleddragon on June 18, 2007 at 9:48 PM
That was funny!
and the rebuttal:
Far be for me to “subvert” that “regular expectation” Spoiler Alert … that I would show up instantly and defend this.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 9:22 PM
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 9:50 PM
I agree with Nonfactor’s interpretation of what the director meant about “subverting media expectations”:
However, the director also says that it is stories and assumptions about Palestinian and Chechen female suicide bombers (to my knowledge, universally Islamic extremists) that she sought to challenge. So this movie is in fact based on the real-life women who commit suicide and murder for the Islamic faith, as we all assumed. According to the article Unamused is citing and according to Nonfactor, who has actually seen the film, the director apparently tried to eliminate that as a factor in the film. Whether she succeeded or not, I cannot say without seeing the film. I find it hard to believe that she did so successfully and at the same time made a good movie. Nonfactor, a non-conservative, says she did succeed. Though my curiosity is slightly piqued, it’s certainly not enough to take up a slot on my Netflix queue!
aero on June 18, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Hey, Y’all! You know what would be fun… Let’s do a film about 9/11…but this time, let’s look at what it would’ve been like had 19 Hell’s Grannies hijacked baby carriages and bombed the buildings!
Because, you know, it’s important to look at all the possibilities, no matter what the reality is.
*grin* :)
tickleddragon on June 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Say, where is Dinsdale Pirahna and Spiny Norman these days, anyway?
tickleddragon on June 18, 2007 at 10:03 PM
I agree with earlier comments about Hitch- truly genius of suspense. M.Knight comes to mind as well, with a couple of his…
This film, however, takes the tragically commonplace suicide bomber situation and tries to erase all of the context that is KEY to understanding why it is so commonplace. The mind-numbed American viewer will probably swallow this pap and eventually choke and die on the real threat that this country is facing.
Vanquisher on June 18, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Thank you, Vanquisher–you said what I’ve been trying to put my finger on. My problem with this film (albeit without having seen it and basing my assumptions entirely on the trailer and the director’s comments) is that I can’t believe the film could have any meaning or value without the context of real-life internal and external motivations such as Islamic extremism.
aero on June 18, 2007 at 10:10 PM
It’s impossible to even rationally discuss this movie when I’m apparently the only one who has seen it. Everyone is assuming what the movie will be about based on a movie trailer and a quote from the director!
My recommendation? Watch the movie. It’d be great to see your expectations when you go in to see the movie and what you thought about it when leaving. The director isn’t sympathetic to the shadow groups cause or even what the main character is doing because the cause is unknown! The director isn’t commentating on how suicide bombings are just or a good way to make a point because there is no political discussion in the movie at all! It is a story about a girl of unknown origin who is going to blow herself up in Times Square for reasons unknown. Not left, not right, not pro-Islam, nor anti-American; it’s just a movie about the life of a girl leading up to an event.
Suspense? Yes. Thrill? Yes. Period.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I agree with Vanquisher and aero. From the film thumbnail:
.
Sorry but this is pure Left, “things are so unknowable.” It permeates our education system – like deagraded clones of Maupassant – intently fixated on nothing, then suicide. Lefties tell themselves it’s somehow “deep” but Mark Twain would have made mincemeat out of these people and their “art.”
Typical, exactly like what the French push on their kids to read for edification, only it just screws them up.
Boy, are YOU right! Everybody go out and rent a couple of Hitchcock this week and watch the things. North By Northwest, Rebecca, Spellbound, Notorious, The Man Who Knew too Much. Rebecca – NOTHING happened and our kids bolted from the room – three times! We adults wanted to bolt, but had to maintain decorum.
Hitchcock was brutal on communists and traitors and evil guys. None of this “Ohh, what’s it all about?”
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 11:15 PM
So, what’s the point?
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Total, fvcking pwnership.
Kralizec on June 18, 2007 at 11:28 PM
What, no link love Allah?
It’s okay, I still love you. ;-)
Note: Apparently this move is NR or “not rated,” although it has been out for a while.
Since (to my knowledge) communists rarely do suicide bombings, and most religious groups enjoy the glory of “man to man” combat, I wonder what extremist group of spiritual people actually wear masks and detonate themselves?
It must be those Christianists!
Darnell Clayton on June 18, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Hitchcock’s The Rope
Yes. A couple of ego-centric, nilistic, elitist, soul-less, intellectual guys murder an aquaintance just to see if they can get away with it and invite a bunch of guests for dinner so they can have the thrill of entertaining people who do not know a murdered man is packed in the trunk right there in the room with them.
One of their unsuspecting guests is the university professor who taught them their ideology.
In other words, Hitchcock made POINTS and the kind of moral emptiness of this other film is exactly the kind of thinking that Hitchcock despised.
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Thanks, naliaka…for the backup. I’m sorry, but nothing chaps me more, film-wise, than people trying desperately to compare some of the hacks we have out there right now, to MASTERS, like Hitch, or even Welles. There is just no comparison. And to suggest otherwise, is just insulting and ignorant of film history.
Any yobbo with a camera and some money can make a film these days… It doesn’t make him/her/them real filmmakers.
tickleddragon on June 19, 2007 at 12:12 AM
If someone strapping on a bomb and blowing him/herself up was as universal to the human race as other forms of suicide, we could all agree there is no political message, that it is about the human condition. Alas, only ONE very SPECIFIC people are current associated with body-bombs.
Nonfactor, if this was 1944, you would argue a film about a girl getting into a single-passenger airplane and flying it into an aircraft carrier bore no allusion to Japanese kamekazis.
laelaps on June 19, 2007 at 12:58 AM
FADE IN:
NYC. TIMES SQUARE. DAY.
A transplanted red English double-decker bus is taking on tourists at the curb as a white-faced MIME enacts WINDING a key in his tummy, uber-theatrically, and BUGGING his mascarra-rimmed eyes with each “twist”.
Several passing TEENAGERS from New Jersey sneer at the guy and make “koo-koo” corkscrew motions at their temples, hooting their derision for his ‘art’. The Mime gives them a hateful sidelong glance.
HAND-HELD CAMERA FOLLOWS the Teenagers getting onto the double-decker bus, running up its rear spiral steps for their roof seats, chuckling together, and one by one they look down over the railing edge at where the Mime was.
But he is gone (!).
SHOT FROM HELICOPTER -of bus as it pulls out into snarling, stop and start, NYC traffic.
MEDIUM SHOT -on the upper bus deck of the Teenagers sharing around a pack of smokes, surreptitiously. An OLD LADY gives them a dirty look as they light up.
ECU of one Teenager about to blow out a match used to light his cigarette- BUT it is blown out by someone else.
The Teenager looks up, surprised, and is somewhat startled to see the white face of the Mime inches from his own.
TEENAGER 1
What the f…
MIME
(interrupts with finger over lips: SHH!)
CAMERA PULLS BACK to include all teenagers and the Mime.
TEENAGER 2
How the hell’d you get up here, freak-atard?!
MIME
(mimicking winding his tummy again)
TEENAGER 3
Christ, here goes Mr. clocksucker, again!
MIME
(raises a warning finger to silence them)
For some reason, they DO fall silent.
SOUND EFX: echoey clock-winding clicks
The Mime WINDS the imaginary key in his stomach tighter and tighter, his face straining with effort and agony.
Teenager 1
(in a normal, modest tone)
What’s the deal with the winding, man?
ECU of contorted Mime’s face, as the ‘key’ is almost impossible to turn.
SHOT OF ENTIRE UPPER BUS DECK
Mime
(makes a small grunting noise)
Teenager 2
(Hey!) No fair, you made a sound!
Teenager 3
Yeah, loser, we heard that!
The Mime opens his arms wide, then reaches toward his nose with one fingertip.
Teenager 1
Now what? Can’t take constructive criticism?
Mime
(speaks for the first time)
Allahu ackbar!
Three
profitsbeard on June 19, 2007 at 1:05 AM
screams are heard as the screen goes black.
CUT TO:
A piece of striped Mime shirt, smoking and charred, flutters to the ground in SLO MO from a great height, never reaching the earth.
profitsbeard on June 19, 2007 at 1:10 AM
It’s impossible to even rationally discuss this movie when I’m apparently the only one who has seen it. Everyone is assuming what the movie will be about based on a movie trailer and a quote from the director!
[Etc., etc.]
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 11:06 PM
On the contrary, Nonfactor, I haven’t watched the trailer or gone off to read the quote from the director. I’m relying almost entirely on your representations, and on that basis, I’ve decided not to see the movie. I’m already pretty busy, testing predictive models of stock price changes, reading a commentary on one of Plato’s dialogues, writing blog comments advocating attention to demography, and slapping around intellectuals who, not suspecting their own fifth-ratedness, compound that offense with the further one of standing up for almost anything, as long as it’s not something that’s evidently advantageous to me and my countrymen. So I’ve decided not to see this particular “drawn out” “suspense/thriller” “movie about the life of a girl leading up to an event.” I’m going to wait and see the next bit of “Art” that “subverts the regular expectations,” or the next one, or the one after that.
Kralizec on June 19, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Good for you.
Nonfactor on June 19, 2007 at 5:52 AM
How about a movie about a suicide bomber who blows herself up at a Rio Grande crossing where hundreds of illegals sneak into the US? Her motive? To stop illegal immigration.
I doubt that one would be called a ‘tour de force’.
Labamigo on June 19, 2007 at 10:53 AM
This film is leftist propaganda. Nonfactor liked the film. Why are we surprised by that? Very few of us here would like this film because of the fact that it is leftist propaganda and we can see that clear as day. Would Nonfactor like a righty propaganda film? I doubt it. Is there such thing as a righty propaganda film? Or would that just be reality? Hmm.
Zetterson on June 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Heh. We can give profitsbeard a camera – the little he’s got has more of a point than this nasty piece of film.
How about this:
There’s one more “little” problem with this evil film. The woman is accent-less, no explanation for what she does, nothing, no origins, nothing distinctive …
But it’s TIMES SQUARE! Wow! TIMES SQUARE! The BIG APPLE! New York City of that PLAINLY identified country United States of AMERICA!
The blankness of everything else only heightens the attention to the ONE identity that is allowed in the film. TIMES SQUARE. It’s just a reworked Left morbid fantasy – no better than the computer-generated (as in the entire script was lifted and pieced togather from lines pirated from other films)Independence Day movie and the scene when the camera rests lovingly over long-drawn-out visions of CG alien spaceships zapping the crap out of … New York. Wasn’t it, TIMES SQUARE, too?
Had the director been truly honest, the target would ALSO have been nameless and unknown and indeterminate. The “unknowingness” of the piece would have been complete.
naliaka on June 19, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I haven’t seen Eight Legged Freaks, but from the trailer I’m going to guess the spiders represent the wide reaching arms of the government and the people trying to kill them are anarchic revolutionaries. I don’t care what someone who has actually seen the movie has to tell me, I know an anarchist who liked the movie and that’s enough for me.
That’s how laughable you guys seem when I read your comments, comments from people who haven’t seen, and who don’t even want to see, the movie.
Nonfactor on June 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM
It is possible to learn a few specific facts about something to have all that is necessary in order to draw a conclusion about it. You claiming this movie is not political is like me telling you that a movie about a Hezbollah member who walks accross the Southern US border and detonates a bomb in NYC is not political. Of course it would be political and I wonder how well received that movie would be by you and your ilk?
And believe me Nonfactor, it is us laughing at your comments. The director admitted this film is leftist propaganda yet you are still attempting to claim that it is not a political film. Jeesh.
Zetterson on June 19, 2007 at 3:01 PM
You yourself said there was nothing but suspense and thrill, but how can there be even that? It’s bad enough without a plot, a motivation, a conflict.
We know from the get-go the idiot blows herself up in TIMES SQUARE, for no known reason. If that doesn’t put wooden stake thru the heart of “suspense,” don’t know what does. And Thrill? You get a thrill out of some cold robot babe blowing up and killing Americans? Especially after 9/11 – with the ghosts of over 2,000 murdered people wafting about the neighborhoods of Manhattan Island? Hmm? Reaaaally?
Would you have had a thrill had she blown up, say, Egyptians standing by the Sphinx instead?
naliaka on June 19, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Now go see the movie and laugh at yourself.
Nonfactor on June 19, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Well, does killing Americans have a thrill for you? You didn’t answer that.
Furthermore, why should I hand over my good money to a movie that sports a trailer so pathetic that it turns me off?
The movie sold itself to YOU. It has not sold itself to ME and Rule No. 1 of business is: the customer is always right.
They all squeal “art” but it’s just a product FOR SALE.
naliaka on June 19, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Okay, you don’t want to see the movie and I don’t want to spoil it for everyone. So why don’t you read the spoilers online and see why I think what you (and others) are saying is so hilarious.
Nonfactor on June 19, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Okay, you don’t want to see the movie and I don’t want to spoil it for everyone. So why don’t you read the spoilers online and see why I think what you (and others) are saying is so hilarious.
Nonfactor on June 19, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Okay. But, it’s not my fault if their marketing misses the mark. If I wanted to sell a film, I’d make teasers attractive to browsers. Is that so unreasonable?
naliaka on June 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Nope.
Nonfactor on June 19, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Now Nonfactor: WHat is the message here?
“Chillingly effective look at the ease which a suicide bomber could wreck havok on U.S. soil.”
Nonfactor, you see anything queer as in creepily out of date and stupendously obtuse about this review?
“Especially in Times Square?”
Hint: How many blocks is Times Square from lower Manhattan? Uh, huh. THAT Lower Manhattan. The one where it was stupendously simple for a bunch of jacked up Muslim terrorists to ram two planeloads of innocent passengers into two high rise buildings, using them as unwilling instuments to murder as many of their fellow Americans as the terrorists hoped possible.
What’s the point of fake drama when the real one is right there? How gross is a review that doesn’t acknowledges that New Yorkers, Americans do not have to be warned about the “ease with which a suicide bomber could wreck havok on US soil.” Yeh, one pretend suicide bomber is chickenshit next to 3,000 who were really murdered down the street.
And the part about no accents is laughable. Plain as day American accents, not even a Canadian abooot. Not Austrialian, not British, not Kenyan, not Nigerian, not Euro second language English, not South Asian New Delhi or Bollywood – let’s tour the Anglophone world – and ESPECIALLY not Elite Saudi boarding school. American.
Kafka. Yeh. Self-absorbed with narsissist joy in one’s cleverness. Pointless.
Have your laugh. It’s pointless, too.
naliaka on June 19, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Comment pages: