Movies That Stung You
 

Movies that fooled you, even long after you saw it.

1. Bladerunner I remember how shocked I was when I first heard that Deckard might be a replicant.

2. Fargo I don't know how many times I saw this thinking it was based on real events. I kept wondering why I hadn't read about it in the newspaper.

3. The Sting I am not sure if I got stung here or not but I have a feeling that Hooker makes off with all the money in the end, pulling off the really big con. I think he might have because Hooker gives the sting sign to Ray Walston's character right at the end and the camera then focuses on Hooker and Gondorff walking off with the same size suitcases. I really wish I knew who had the money.

Movies that you fooled you??

I once pinched my finger in the case for Sweet Home Alabama... That stung a bit ;)

One thing that stings me is that my daughter (who loves the Raiders of the Lost Ark series) recently watched a couple of early James Bond movies with me. In Dr. No there is a scene were a tarantula is crawling up Jame's arm with very dramatic music building while he's sweating and looking at it before he swipes it away. My daughter looks at me and says...gee mom...compared to Indiana Jones and what he went through...he's kind of a wuss. That stung. :laugh:

Hotel Rwanda - That was a powerful movie. I still can't get over the hundreds of dead bodies in the streets, not to mention the brutal, merciless slaughterings by the machete.
The Exorcist - I couldn't sleep until six am that night. I had to see the sun come up to feel safe.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly happens at the end of The Ninth Gate.

I think Johnny Depp succeeds in opening the Ninth Gate and so being able to enter Hell. He was helped along by a fallen angel, apparently because this was Hell's will, too.

If he's going to hell, why does it look so peacful and serene...doesn't make sense, does it?

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I think it looked so peaceful because that's what both parties had wanted in the end. It was the end of a chapter, the achievement of the movie's ultimate goal. He wasn't going to Hell out of condemnation, but to achieve a purpose, to reach the end of an obsession. He was embracing it, not fighting with it, and they didn't actually show him jumping straight into Hell but going towards it. It was what he wanted, the power, the satisfaction, I suppose. It was the path he'd chosen for himself, and he could see it clearly. He was definitely hynotized by it, drawn towards it . . . and if you're accepting something with open arms, why would it need to be violent?

Maybe the angel was a symbol of what Hell was supposed to be in this movie. Damnation through grace and manipulation.

Maybe they were implying that his life was chaos before he embraced Hell? It wouldn't surprise me that the movie would have some kind of twisted meaning behind it like that.

i'm still trying to figure out the talented mr. ripley

I don't think it will ever make sense. Here is a link that tries to explain the ridiculous ending to that movie.

im still trying to figure out Van Helsing and why it was so damn ****!

Which part of The Talented Mr. Ripley are you trying to figure out susan? Maybe someone here could help you figure it out. :)

I guessed I'm confused about the exact question... but,

Posse was very stunning because it ends so unconventionally. Bruce Dern was wonderful in it.

In a Lonely Place made a lasting impression. A real testament to the power of having trust and faith in those you love, when every logical reason tells you not to.

those are a couple of movies that "stung" me and defied what I expected to happen.

I'm still trying to figure out the appeal to the boring Mr. Damon.

Nice thread uconjack.

A movie that has fooled me? hmmm I recall watching the 75th Academy Awards and hearing that Charlie Kaufman and his "twin brother" Donald Kaufman had been nominated for Best Screenwriting for the movie Adaptation (2002). I remember feeling confused, as I was oblivious to the fact that the nomination was partly fictional and staged and that "Donald Kaufman" was in fact entirely fabricated. I recall feeling rather silly because I thought the whole time Charlie had made up the twin character in the movie to symbolically represent his own multi-dimensional personality.... It wasn't until a week or so later after I had read an Article on the film where I realized that I was right the first time and that the nomination of a fictional screenwriter "Donald Kaufman" was a first in the history of the Oscars.

:dizzy:

In short - I was fooled good.

You must've napping pretty hard all that week. :laugh:

Poor...dude...ette..thing.