Do two movies make a genre? I'm aware of only one other, Ravenous.
Riley ,'Potential'
Buffista Movies 6: lies and videotape
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
I have a deep and abiding love for Ravenous. In fact, maybe I'll watch it tonight. (Yes, we own the DVD. Go on, act surprised.)
Wow, synchronicity! In a very random coincidence, I just recommended Ravenous to a co-worker looking for suspense movies just this very morning. I haven't seen it in years, but something he said reminded me of it.
Do two movies make a genre? I'm aware of only one other, Ravenous.
There's also The Killing Box starring Adrian Profit Pasdar. Which I thought wasn't too bad at all ... certainly better than the rating it gets on imdb.
You could also throw in Herschell Gordon Lewis' 2000 Maniacs, even though it's not technically set during the Civil War.
I have a deep and abiding love for Ravenous. In fact, maybe I'll watch it tonight. (Yes, we own the DVD. Go on, act surprised.)
I'll just repeat this word-for-word. And I just netflixed The Killing Box, which I'd never heard of.
It would appear that the presence of David Arquette is somehow crucial to the genre.
Sits in the RAVENOUS loving/owning corner with Jess and Raq.
I also own the soundtrack album.
It would appear that the presence of David Arquette is somehow crucial to the genre.
Did they have propeller ties and multicolored suspenders back in the Civil War era?
Corwood, just wondering if you ever figured out anything coherent to say about THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I've been thinking about it since I saw it, but I'm damned if I've been able to come up with anything other than "I liked it a lot, but haven't quite decided on that ending yet." The movie seems to be drinking my milkshake, so to speak.
I had an elaborate theory about the third of seven revelations, which involves two witnesses to the Apocalypse. From wikipedia:
Revelation 11 introduces two witnesses, who are described as "the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth". They will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. The witnesses will be given supernatural powers to defend themselves from attack and to smite the earth with plagues. They will "torment those who dwell on the earth" with these plagues. After they prophesy and testify for 1,260 days, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. Their corpses will lie in the streets of Jerusalem for 3-1/2 days while the world watches and rejoices over their deaths. However, after the 3-1/2 days, they will be resurrected and then ascend up into heaven while their enemies look on.
But then I found that the Church Of The Third Revelation was a millennialist cult in the late 19th century.
So, without any theories about hidden meanings and metaphors, I have to agree with Phil Nugent: it's a character study about the puniness of one man's soul.
But then I found that the Church Of The Third Revelation was a millennialist cult in the late 19th century.
Interesting. It looks like PTA used a lot of historical details when he wrote the script. I read that he took the milkshake line verbatim from a transcript of the Teapot Dome Scandal hearings.
eta Good analysis by Phil. I always like reading his opinions, even when I don't agree with them (in this case I do).