Can someone clarify something about the movie "Strange Circus"?
So I understand mostly everything about the ending (I think). Taeko ending up being Sayori, the mother, and Yuji was Mitsuko, the daughter. Sayori became delusional and convinced herself that she was actually Mitsuko to escape from the guilt of nearly killing her over an earring. The part that confused me though is the scene where Taeko again wakes up in the hotel with Yuji, right after Yuji (Mitsuko) explained to her how she became delusional and all that. Taeko starts freaking out and yelling at Yuji, saying that he must have seen her without the wheelchair once and that's how he knows. In the meantime, Yuji is denying there ever having being a wheelchair. And then it snaps back to the chainsaw dismemberment scene, and Yuji (Mitsuko) remarks "Now which one is the dream?" This is the part that's confusing me. I took the chainsaw dismemberment scene to be reality. What was up with that dream sequence in the hotel room? Was it even a dream? Or was the chainsaw bit a dream? If the hotel part was just a dream, how did Yuji know what she was dreaming? Both of those realities cannot be true. So that leads me to believe the hotel scene was actually not a dream, but the chainsaw part was, otherwise Yuji wouldn't have even known about the hotel dream. But then this completely distorts my previous understanding of the movie. So was it all just a delusional dream from Taeko at the hotel, and she's really not Sayuri after all? Man I'm so confused! Why was that dream bit in the hotel even added, I just don't get it! Please someone clear this up for me!
The Shining confuses me can someone clarify?
He does all that typing, so the viewer may think he is working well and writing some great stuff. But later we learn that he was repeating that silly little line concerning work, over and over. That is proof that he seems to be bonkers, for his wife anyway. Some of the stuff is as seen through crazy Jack's eyes, so the viewer gets scared -- what will he see next? What will he do next??? And, he could have just wandered off. But then how would the movie have been, if it turned into a rescue mission for a man in the snowy wilderness? It would have been a much different movie... :-)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015 movie): Can someone clarify the relationships between the Resistance, Rebel Alliance, and New Republic?
The Republic stretches across the breadth of the known Galaxy. The Republic is transfigured at the end of the Clone Wars into a Galactic Empire by the declaration of Emperor Palpatine.Approximately 17 years later, the Alliance to Restore the Republic is established to commit open Rebellion against the Emperor. A year passes, and Emperor Palpatine finally dissolves the Senate.The Alliance defeats the Empire at Endor, destroying the second Death Star and ending Palpatine's life in the process. The Imperial Navy scatters and the Galaxy rejoices.The Alliance becomes transitional, reintegrates the Senate and ratifies the constitution for a New Republic. Somewhere in here, the commensurate battle takes place between the Alliance / New Republic forces and the last combative vestiges of the Imperial Remnant in the Battle of Jakku.Some years later, the First Order is formed as a radical rebirth of Imperial doctrine and powermongering. The New Republic Senate does not recognize this group as a threat, thus does not authorize or mobilize New Republic armed forces in light of it. Several Republic officials do, however, and establish The Resistance as a paramilitary organization using private or off-the-books funds and assets.In Episode VII, the First Order commences a preemptive strike and eviscerates the current capital of the New Republic, Hosnia Prime, as well as the Republic's main battle fleet. The Resistance reacts and destroys the First Order's superweapon, Starkiller Base, and now we (the audience) await the next installment.
Can someone please explain the movie "White Noise" to me?
I just watched "White Noise" with Michael Keaton. I am confused on some parts and looking for answers. Like who were the 3 silouettes, evil spirits, angels of death, or something? Were they the ones that killed his wife or & the others or was it the construction worker? Why did the silouettes attack Michael's character when he tried to save the lady? It was his dead wife that was letting him know about the future deaths of people so he could possibility save them. But then why couldn't he save himself or his wife save him? This movie gave me goosebumps many times but the second half of the movie was very confusing to me, to figure what actually was happening. Did anyone else get confused toward the end? I was disappointed because it left me with questions and not many answers. Can someone clarify this movie to me? Thanks!
Can someone clarify the ending of Halloween 2 remake?
my take on the ending is this is there were part in the movie were Laurie was dreaming or seeing things that wont there and at the end of the movie after she kills michael I think that whole thing with here being in the asylum was all in her mind.The reason why is this because remember that part were she had some of those dream that we all thought were real but they wont well that why i say it was in her mind because at the time were we see her looking at michael mask after she takes it off it flash to her being in a asylum and her have a crazy smile as her dead mother showed up with a white horse now she was walking slowly up to her so if it was in her mind then that could have bean brackitt walking up to her to see if she was ok .The other thing is Laurie and Michael have to be telepathic link so that smile could mean michael was still alive.The reason why is because remember when they were eating pizza and michael was eating the dog and laurie just went threw up for some odd reason that why I think there telepathic link.I hope that is the case because I dont want Laurie character to become the next killer after michael dead i want to see her beat michael for good and then have walk away or something but not for her to become what michael is or and for her character not to die at all.I just think this movie fall in the same lines as halloween 4.If they do a three and she is the killer then Halloween is dead to me
Why do people get choked easily? To clarify, in many movies even in news, when someone is choked, it's mostly from the mount position with both hands on your neck. It seems to me like something you might easily defend from.
Why do people get choked easily?Do people actually get choked easily? I train BJJ, so I have become quite proficient at it, but when I roll with inexperienced people they don’t have much luck blocking off both of my carotid arteries. When I first started, I didn’t have any better results. Choking a resisting opponent was a real challenge. First you had to get to a position where you could employ a choke, then you had to beat a number of defenses to finish it. The time investment necessary to learn how to choke someone properly is equivalent to a boxer getting prepared for their first amateur bout.To clarify, in many movies even in news, when someone is choked, it's mostly from the mount position with both hands on your neck. It seems to me like something you might easily defend from.The foremost goal of fight choreography is to tell a story, not depict realistic martial action (John Wick manages to do both, but that is far from typical). When someone is being choked face-to-face, it creates an intimate confrontation where the audience can see the expressions of both victim and perpetrator — it’s unrealistic technique but good story-telling.Our society is blasted with stylized fight scenes, so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tried out a Hollywood move in real life. If someone meaning me real harm ever chokes me, I hope they do it exactly like in the linked image: one hand directly on my throat while they sit in mount with their weight way too far forward. Escapes and sweeps would be easy to get and that pesky hand would be a manageable threat. In contrast, I would get very concerned if my adversary went to a back mount with body triangle.
I read somewhere that actors in the golden age of movies such as Cary Grant used a style of speaking that no longer exists. Can someone clarify this?
In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was a trend of speaking with what was sometimes called a “mid-Atlantic” accent. This accent was a completely artificial one, a creation of elocution teachers, movie directors, and other people who taught others how to speak. The mid-Atlantic accent combined aspects of a few American regional dialects, particularly from New England, with aspects of British English. The result was something half-way between a British and American accent, hence “mid-Atlantic.”This accent was thought to sound educated and sophisticated. It was regarded as a little classier than regular American speech, taking on some of what was regarded as the civilized refinement of the British upper classes. Consequently, a number of respected public figures used it, including presidents like William McKinley and FDR. For the same reasons, it was taught to a lot of movie actors of the time. Cary Grant is actually an exceptional case. He was born in England and moved to the US in his late teens. Where others learned it as an artificial dialect, he actually came by his half American/half English accent naturally.Anyway, the mid-Atlantic accent fell out of favor rapidly in the years following WWII. Movie acting moved on to more naturalistic accents, and many politicians were happy to sound more like common Americans themselves. It has nearly vanished by now, with old-school New England intellectuals like George Plympton being the last speakers.