Bullets 'n' Babes

I would hardly call her ugly at all, she had her head shaved - if that makes someone ugly then plenty of men the world over are in deep shit

Shingster wrote:Actually that reminds me:

romerojpg wrote:So can you think of any pretty big budget Blockbuster (that's what they are expecting from it) that has had an uglified lead character?

Alien 3, who was it who directed that?

I though Alien 3 was the only time Sigourney Weaver ever looked hot

Not sure about hot but not ugly, well after her painful accident blood shot eye goes away

bradavon wrote:

Markgway wrote:Fight Club I just didn't get at all. If someone would like to explain to me the point of that movie (clue- their isn't one) I'd be happy to listen.

It's a thriller with one hell of a twist. I'd say that's it's point.

Yes, but what's the film trying to say? I'm sure the first time I watched FC the twist fooled me, which is probably what made me want to see it again. But when I did I realised that the film actually makes no sense, the conclusion makes no sense, and the film has no point of view on anything. It's meaningless claptrap; nihilism in the guise of something important. What did I miss? Seriously, everyone loves this so it must be me. What am I missing?

Shingster wrote:Christ you people are superficial, this isn't a porn film, she's not there for you to get your stroke on

So you say... when I heard Rooney Mara was cast I had one hand in my shorts.

There's no reason why she couldn't have been an attractive punkette.

Not wanting to get into discussion about what Fight Clubs about but I just took a look at the wiki for the original Novel and saw this lovely tidbit under 'Motifs'


Isolationism, specifically directed towards material items and possessions, is a common theme throughout the novel. Tyler acts as the major catalyst behind the destruction of our vanities, which he claims is the path to finding our inner-selves. "I'm breaking my attachment to physical power and possessions," Tyler whispered, "because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit."


There's a hell of a lot to it but that's one element the protagonists persona (and very neatly put). And it says a lot about where the story is coming from

Of course Fight Club has a point, to say otherwise is nonsense. I'm not going to get into it now because I have an Ozu film to analyse for TDF by monday, but the film is quite blatantly about the emasculation and disintegration of the male identity by the anglo saxon work ethic and the consumeristic trends and fashions of post-modern America. Tyler Durden represents not necessarily just the man "the narrator" wants to be, but the person that society tells us we should aspire to be, and the Fight Club presents these men with an outlet for their primal masculine urges. It does have a deep anarchistic streak, which is played out by the finale, and more importantly it has a much richer sense of irony in the way Tyler Durden first becomes the voice of anrachy and free-will, but then turns that message into a force of mind-control. Nat Tunbridge wrote a much better analysis than I ever could for DVDTimes here.

I can understand completely why Mark doesn't get this film because I get the impression he has his own strong sense of identity, but I know so many young blokes these days who are exactly the kind of people who should watch Fight Club and perhaps take note. In many ways the film has become quite prescient, because the next generation of western males (particularly in this country among the middle class) are a right bunch of metrosexual pussies following peer pressure like a mouse to cheese (just look at all the bollocks that goes on on Facebook and twitter these days).

Markgway wrote:There's no reason why she couldn't have been an attractive punkette.

Actually if you knew the story then you would understand that there is every reason why she looks the way she does, her appearance is a physical projection of her mistrust and hostility towards men, or more specifically what she sees as the power and hostility a male-driven society holds over women (which is the central theme of the series).

luckystars wrote:Isolationism, specifically directed towards material items and possessions, is a common theme throughout the novel. Tyler acts as the major catalyst behind the destruction of our vanities, which he claims is the path to finding our inner-selves. "I'm breaking my attachment to physical power and possessions," Tyler whispered, "because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit."

What a lot of pretentious shite. Anyone here who pretends they understand that pseudo-intellectual drivel is lying their ass off.

"...because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit"

Someone who talks like that deserves to get punched in the fucking face.

Shingster wrote:Of course Fight Club has a point, to say otherwise is nonsense.

That's me - king of nonsense

the film is quite blatantly about the emasculation and disintegration of the male identity by the anglo saxon work ethic and the consumeristic trends and fashions of post-modern America.

I didn't get that. All I remember is blokes punching each other in the face and then some building blowing up. None of it made sense. If there was such a point in the novel (which I've not read) it must have been lost (for some, myself included) in Fincher's direction. At some point I'll need to watch this film again to see if it makes anymore sense to me as a 31 year old as it did to the 20 year old who last saw it.

Tyler Durden represents not necessarily just the man "the narrator" wants to be, but the person that society tells us we should aspire to be, and the Fight Club presents these men with an outlet for their primal masculine urges.

When I say 'no point' of course I exaggerate - like we all do from time to time. I did understand the basic ideas that were being floated, but felt that the treatment was more concerned with shock value than cohesive argument. The 'mindless' conclusion I can only assume was provided to show how empty-headed these characters were? Not one person in the film has a constructive idea. If society was filled with irresponsible, aggressive oafs like Tyler Durden it would be unliveable anarchy. Is THAT what the film is ultimately trying to say? Or are we supposed to - god forbid - admire him?

Nat Tunbridge wrote a much better analysis than I ever could for DVDTimes here.

I'll give it a look.

I can understand completely why Mark doesn't get this film because I get the impression he has his own strong sense of identity

Tear my argument to shreads and then compliment me... nice touch you sly dog.

just look at all the bollocks that goes on on Facebook and twitter these days

I don't use either of those so are we talk about bullying?

her appearance is a physical projection of her mistrust and hostility towards men, or more specifically what she sees as the power and hostility a male-driven society holds over women (which is the central theme of the series).

Sounds interesting-ish. Does her character change at all throughout? Or does she stick with the men-as-tossers viewpoint? Also does the character become a punk after being raped? If so I understand what you're saying about her extreme appearence being an extreme course designed to repel the enemy.

Markgway wrote:What a lot of pretentious shite. Anyone here who pretends they understand that pseudo-intellectual drivel is lying their ass off.

"...because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit"

Someone who talks like that deserves to get punched in the fucking face.

It's like the whole thing of monks isolating themselves and meditating until they reach enlightenment.

gasteropod wrote:It's like the whole thing of monks isolating themselves and meditating until they reach enlightenment.

Yeah, but that's bollocks too.

Just shows how you ignorant you are! I started feeling immense energy after meditating for about 15 minutes once, haven't dared try it again.

Markgway wrote:If there was such a point in the novel (which I've not read) it must have been lost (for some, myself included) in Fincher's direction.

The film is very faithful to the novel, just has lots of visual trickery which is mostly smoke and mirrors, but kinda important in giving the film a fresh contemporary appeal. The novel is just as guilty of what you'd call shock tactics.

If society was filled with irresponsible, aggressive oafs like Tyler Durden it would be unliveable anarchy. Is THAT what the film is ultimately trying to say? Or are we supposed to - god forbid - admire him?

No, he goes from a sort of social prophet to a genuine harbinger of doom/anarchy, so any admiration is meant to be stripped away by the end. The final scene is a mixture of personal epiphany for the narrator and just a daffy punchline when we see the full scope of the anarchy Tyler has wrought upon the city/world.

I don't use either of those so are we talk about bullying?

No, although I'm sure bullying does take place, I'm just talking about the herd mentality and social/online cliques that seem to pervade on there.

Does her character change at all throughout? Or does she stick with the men-as-tossers viewpoint?

I've only seen the first film, so I can't really answer that, she forms a bond with the male lead and views him as a decent man though.

Also does the character become a punk after being raped? If so I understand what you're saying about her extreme appearence being an extreme course designed to repel the enemy.

To answer that would be a big spoiler, let's just say in the first film/novel we know something happened in her childhood that resulted in her internment in a psychiatric hospital for the rest of her teen years, but that's not revealed until the end.

Shingster wrote:The film is very faithful to the novel, just has lots of visual trickery which is mostly smoke and mirrors, but kinda important in giving the film a fresh contemporary appeal. The novel is just as guilty of what you'd call shock tactics.

It's interesting that flashy and shocking elements that are designed to make a film outstanding and contemporary can be as offputting to some just as if the film had been made in a more traditional way (for want of a better term) it would have seemed dull and routine to others. I'm not by and large a fan of gimmicks in direction - I'm sure you've noted that in my past reviews - so it's not just this movie. I prefer to get lost in story and character than visuals and tricks.

No, he goes from a sort of social prophet to a genuine harbinger of doom/anarchy, so any admiration is meant to be stripped away by the end. The final scene is a mixture of personal epiphany for the narrator and just a daffy punchline when we see the full scope of the anarchy Tyler has wrought upon the city/world.

OK. I'll keep that irony in mind when I see the film again (whenever that will be). I always had the sneaking suspicion that Tyler was genuinely meant to be cool - a bit over the top, perhaps, but an admirable example of the alpha-male nonetheless. It may be that the problem for me is not the message but the messenger (or rather the method of telling). I do remember the critics were divided when FC came out so obviously I'm not alone in my negative assessment - but I'd be willing to revisit and review my opinion.

I'm sure bullying does take place, I'm just talking about the herd mentality and social/online cliques that seem to pervade on there.

OK. Glad I'm not a part of it. Or does Bullets count...?

I've only seen the first film, so I can't really answer that, she forms a bond with the male lead and views him as a decent man though.

Fair dos. I'm not a fan of all-men-are-pigs propagandas anymore than I am all-women-are-slags diatribes. So it's good if there's balance and development. I did intend on checking out the Swedish originals but apparently only the first one is good which makes me inclined to hang off and see what Fincher does with the material.

Markgway wrote:Fair dos. I'm not a fan of all-men-are-pigs propagandas anymore than I am all-women-are-slags diatribes. So it's good if there's balance and development.

My only complaint about the first film is that imo it doesn't really present a totally grounded view of society and does go a little overboard with regards to the general hostility thrown at Lisbeth.

gasteropod wrote:Just shows how you ignorant you are! I started feeling immense energy after masturbating for about 15 minutes once, haven't dared try it again.

Understandable.

recently watched the original of this,very good if a little overlong.Brillant performance by the lead actress. i believe it was originally made for swedish tv,well if so they live up to their liberal attitude as there's some graphic imagery here.looking forward to the 2nd one though i hear it's not as good.

Haven't seen the film and haven't read the book, but I do find it somehow ironic that you're arguing about the female lead's "ugly looks" when the (original) film's title is "Men Who Hate Women" (Män som hatar kvinnor). I don't know where the new "Dragon Tattoo" title came from...

I think it comes probably from two things: 1. The original title is a very blunt statement of the book's themes, which could be perceived as alienating to some male readers who may mistake it as nothing more than a ultra-feminist man-hating critique (if you're trying to aim at as broad a demographic as possible it's probably best not to state your politics up front), and 2: The title of the 2nd novel is genuinely The Girl Who Played with Fire, so I'd imagine the English publishers latched on to that for a general format from which to name the rest of the series.

More shots of Rooney Mara as Lisbeth here. I think these probably give a better indication of how she'll look on screen in the role.

If Mara's performance matches her commitment to the role it should be a winner.

"...her hair chopped, and her lip, brow, nose, and nipple pierced—all in one “very intense” day."

Someone should've told her they invented clip-ons. Ouch.

If they went to the bother of nipple-piercing we're obviously getting to see some tit.

I really don't care about seeing nipples if they're pierced...

saltysam wrote: i believe it was originally made for swedish tv

Yup and the films are hacked up versions of the TV cuts.

Yeah it's why I've not sought out the sequels yet, I want to wait for the TV cuts to make it over here and then watch the trilogy in full.