OgreVI
Cellar Dweller
I'm ugly on the inside, too.
Posts: 17
|
Post by OgreVI on Aug 1, 2012 0:09:18 GMT -5
Something occurred to me as Ted and Tony were discussing the mysterious (& possibly nonsensical) hobo-figure that didn't occur to me when I first watched the film. He eats locusts, right? What other famous ragged figure eats locusts (and honey)? John the Baptist, that's who. John the Baptist came to announce the coming of Christ - so if this is an anti-John the Baptist, does he come to announce the coming of the Antichrist? Just a thought... Clever, clever...I never thought of that. I'm gonna consider the idea during tonight's rewatch.
|
|
|
Post by Stuart on Aug 14, 2012 2:27:23 GMT -5
Really enjoyed this episode guys. Looking forward to discussions about the sequels. Been a fan of Hellraiser ever since I dragged the wife-to-be along to see it (and the first two sequels) at the cinema all those years ago. Wife-to-be wasn’t impressed. I let it go and married her anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shadymoon on Aug 25, 2012 17:22:32 GMT -5
I have to ask this question, cause as I was listening to this podcast episode today I thought of something.
Ok, at the end of the first one when the box is going into the fire and the skeleton dragon grabs it and flies off with it. The next thing we see is that the box is back on sale in the same spot as the start of the film. I have just wondering if that the merchant is some sort of demonish shapeshifter and HE was the skeleton dragon thing that grabbed the box from the fire.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Sept 6, 2012 19:53:46 GMT -5
Watched the movie a few nights ago, so now listening to the podcast on my way to work. Great stuff, and some nice observations, but I think you missed something between Kirsty and Frank. The "Come to Daddy" line, at least in my mind, always implied something abusive occurred between the two characters at some point, probably during Kirsty's childhood. Just something too creepy and pedophiliac in the line reading brought up this possibility to mind when I first saw the film, and it continues to feel that way.
Perhaps that's why Frank is so interested in Kirsty when she ends up in the attic. He wants to continue their relationship, or at least find out if it was as exciting for him as when he abused her as a child.
Another interesting line is when Julia brings home Frank's first victim. A brief moment when, knowing what will really happen, seems to pull away from the man and he growls at her, "You haven't changed your fucking mind, you bitch?" or something like that. Suddenly, Julia seems more at ease with offing this clown, forcing him to apologize for his outburst.
While the scene works to motivate Julia, I also wonder if Barker added that line so the audience wouldn't be as upset with an "innocent" man being murdered and drained of life by a skinless Frank. The technique is used often, where someone has to die, so the character is written so their actions justify their death. Perhaps the most blatant example is the male hospital worker in Kill Bill. The Bride wasn't going to make it out of the hospital and commander a vehicle without killing someone, so rather than a kindly nurse, the character is written as a vile bastard pimping out a comatose woman.
Of course, as Tony points out, none of the characters in the film are likable, so that might be why that line was included. But, as the first victim is given considerable screen time, I think he was written to allow Julia, and the audience, to feel no real remorse at his death.
Anyway, Kirsty's in the hospital and the wall has opened. Should be able to finish up on my way to work tomorrow. Then, on to the addendum episode. Yea, I already listened to parts 2 and 3, but was hoping for a classic rant from Ted. Maybe in part 4...
|
|