What Are Your Favorite DEEP Films Worth Re-watching?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, August 14, 2023 19:42
VIEWED: 12501
PAGE 5 of 9

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I still don't know what you are talking about.
One is a poignant reveal of a spirit who has not passed over, yet while unaware of his demise he continues to help those that he can, as he did in the secular world. He becomes aware of his latent mortality.
The other is the same lame "it was all a dream" hocum, with the excuse that it was all from drugs. No memory revealed, no spiritual awakening, no helping others, nothing actually happened during his dreams, nothing except the reveal that you just wasted 2 hours of your life.

---

Well... again, I saw the movie when I was like 10 years old. Maybe the "it's all a dream" trope was new to me at the time.

I think what stuck with me was the "he's already dead" thing, that in both movies you didn't know until the very end. I think I was guilty of focusing on the perceived parallels throughout the movie to the point that I wasn't taking in all that you noticed about it. If it really is as good as you say it is, M Knight probably "borrowed" the premise of Jacob's Ladder and made it a better story with a higher production value. I'm not going to admit there weren't parallels though, because why would a movie I had seen as a kid stick with me over a decade later while watching The Sixth Sense. I already knew the ending well before it happened.

I do feel bad when somebody sees a movie that I recommend and hates it. If I knew you were actually going to see one of my recommendations I would have put Ink at the top of the list. I hope you do watch that one someday and don't let my bad recommendation of Jacob's Ladder put you off from it.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.

---

I saw that one in grade school at some point. We actually got a half-day to watch it in the gym with one of those ancient projection screen TVs that probably cost 10,000 bucks at the time. I remembered enjoying it very much. I haven't seen it since though so I don't remember much about it.


Maybe it is just more proof of my bad taste, but I always liked Kevin Kostner and never really understood the hate he got for most of his movies.

I'm just going to go ahead and shoot all credibility I have when it comes to movies and say that I even enjoyed Tin Cup, and Waterworld was a great movie (if you don't take it too seriously).

Best line in Waterworld? "Oh Thank God!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.

---

Which part? Why?
Did you want him to stay so the Army would hunt down and destroy the tribe?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I still don't know what you are talking about.
One is a poignant reveal of a spirit who has not passed over, yet while unaware of his demise he continues to help those that he can, as he did in the secular world. He becomes aware of his latent mortality.
The other is the same lame "it was all a dream" hocum, with the excuse that it was all from drugs. No memory revealed, no spiritual awakening, no helping others, nothing actually happened during his dreams, nothing except the reveal that you just wasted 2 hours of your life.

---

Well... again, I saw the movie when I was like 10 years old. Maybe the "it's all a dream" trope was new to me at the time.

I think what stuck with me was the "he's already dead" thing, that in both movies you didn't know until the very end. I think I was guilty of focusing on the perceived parallels throughout the movie to the point that I wasn't taking in all that you noticed about it. If it really is as good as you say it is, M Knight probably "borrowed" the premise of Jacob's Ladder and made it a better story with a higher production value. I'm not going to admit there weren't parallels though, because why would a movie I had seen as a kid stick with me over a decade later while watching The Sixth Sense. I already knew the ending well before it happened.

---

Sixth Sense had all of the clues in the body of the film, or they could be called foreshadowing. Nothing in Sixth Sense argued against the conclusion, there are no continuity conflicts.
In JL the character peruses 2 versions of his Honorable Discharge papers dated 8 July 1972. This has no continuity with the conclusion of the story.
Anybody paying attention to Sixth Sense would already know the ending before it was revealed in montage. Because this was the first of his films to be widely viewed (successful), many were not ready to pay attention to it, but after this one viewers could expect to pay attention while viewing his next films.

Quote:

---

I do feel bad when somebody sees a movie that I recommend and hates it.

---

Me too. But I cannot please everybody. Still, I do not want to have somebody miss out on a great film just because I held back too much.

Quote:

---

If I knew you were actually going to see one of my recommendations I would have put Ink at the top of the list. I hope you do watch that one someday and don't let my bad recommendation of Jacob's Ladder put you off from it.

---

Ink is on the list that I've compiled in the Opening Post.
I may have heard others list Jacob's Ladder, but the claimed duplication of storyline from Sixth Sense threw me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I saw that one in grade school at some point. We actually got a half-day to watch it in the gym with one of those ancient projection screen TVs that probably cost 10,000 bucks at the time. I remembered enjoying it very much. I haven't seen it since though so I don't remember much about it.

---

Maybe you should watch it again. Look for his kids in it. I've enjoyed it dozens of times. There are documentaries about how it was made, why the financiers decided to not cancel the project, and reasons for some of the casting. There were some parts that I still didn't fully get until quite a few viewings - I might have had too much time between viewings.

Quote:

---

Maybe it is just more proof of my bad taste, but I always liked Kevin Kostner and never really understood the hate he got for most of his movies.

---

I thought Field of Dreams was above average, while others consider it much more highly. I thoroughly enjoyed Postman, Dances, Waterworld - actually feel these are his 3 best, displaying his vision. Perfect World and Mr Roberts just didn't seem to capture him the same way. Bodyguard was OK the first few times, but crackhead Whitney just becomes more annoying as the view counter climbs.

Quote:

---

I'm just going to go ahead and shoot all credibility I have when it comes to movies and say that I even enjoyed Tin Cup, and Waterworld was a great movie (if you don't take it too seriously).

Best line in Waterworld? "Oh Thank God!"

---

I disagree. Tina Majorino's "You're in trouble nowwwww"
Did you understand the name of the ship prior to the reveal, when it sank/capsized?
Actually, one of my favorite Hopper films.

Also in Postman, see how many of his kids you find. I really enjoyed the rest of the cast, as well. In fact, include Waterworld, Dances, Dreams, and Bodyguard with cast enjoyment.
I suppose Postman may have come too soon after Braveheart, but I didn't consider that to be a negative. It was released almost 2 months before Dangerous Beauty (with a lot of production flowing from Braveheart).

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.

---

Which part? Why?
Did you want him to stay so the Army would hunt down and destroy the tribe?

---

The very last few scenes when Costner's character and his wife were riding off separate from the Dakota. Those scenes showed what would become the end of an entire culture JSF. The Horse culture that was part of my ancestors and the Cheyenne and the Dakota and the Crow was coming to an end. That band would end up on a reservation. Way of life GONE.

Also at the end of the film, he wasn't in the army anymore. He had become Indian.

---

OK. So you are not upset that he tried to stave off the inevitable by returning to the Army so they would stop hunting down the tribe. You're only bemoaning the inevitable, the point of the film.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Costner's character rejoining the army would not have stopped anything. This film is set during the American expansion further into the West. There was no making the army stop hunting this band of Dakota.

Ceeehrist, JSF are you really that obtuse not to see that the army paved the way into the West and with that the conflict and the confrontations that occurred?

Were we just suppose to roll over and play dead because the White man wanted OUR land?

---

In the film, The Army was chasing the tribe because of the desertion of Dances With Wolves (Dunbar). He did not rejoin the Army, just returned to them so they had no further need to look for him. His purpose was to remove the Army's need to further hunt the tribe. Recall that he was apparently one of the first contacts of the tribe with the Army. They were not actively hunting the tribe (this specific tribe) when he reported to post.

In the film, they cannot know the future for certain. They are surmising and supposing, but the history you now know does not exist in the time of the film.

You say YOUR land. Did your tribe or nation, the language, have a word or phrase for ownership of land? I have heard that the Native languages did not have any terms or understanding of ownership of lands, or purchasing or selling lands, and that this was a major obstacle and misunderstanding between the Native Americans and all interlopers from Yurp - French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Dutch, and English. Are you saying this is incorrect?
And were your tribes nomadic? Or did they have established towns or cities?

The Army was not it's own Master. It served at the beck and call of the Government. The Government had purchased the land. The politicians running the Government were the directors and negotiators of what the Government policy was regarding land, purchasing of land, and Natives.

The film refers to the tribe as Lakota. Some description of the tribe is fluid. different versions place the story near the modern day Dakotas, and others place it in the Southwest, like modern Arizona. The availability of film shooting locations apparently had impact on who/where the tribe would be.

The film begins during the Civil War, where intolerant Democrats were waging War upon America. Following this, the Army had more time, under Democrat President Johnson. History cannot be changed regarding the intolerance of Democrats. I don't recall for sure what year it was towards the end of the film. Johnson served until 1869.

About a decade before Civil War, President Fillmore (Whig Party) had been a bit more reasonable regarding Natives. He was followed by Democrats Pierce and Buchanan, before Lincoln (First ever Republican President).

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

JSF is kinda right Brenda, as far as the movie goes. Hell, you're right as well.
I'll explain:

You're right about the US Cavalry/Army moving west and displacing tribes as they went along. Hell, they were being massacred. Land wasn't the only thing that was being taken, the culture and the spirit of the Native Americans were also being taken. It is well documented what the government did to the human beings that were here well before the arrival of the Europeans. Even the name Native Americans is a misnomer, as the country was "discovered" by the Europeans for Europeans.

America was so named by them after:

Quote:

---

Because a German map maker named it after Amerigo Vespucci because he was the first person to prove that America was a "New World" so he called it Amerigo but accidentally miss spelled it so it America.

---

German, Italian and soon after many other "immigrants" made their way to this country, they had a hand in the making of this country taken from those that were already here. Funny how that works isn't it. This is the land of those people and yet we have some "people" who think that building a wall is the answer to this country's problems. All I can say is Tisk, Tisk! Ironic isn't it. Land taken, stolen and those that did the stealing are claiming that others that come here are
trespassing. That takes a lot of nerve. unbelievably huge balls to say anything other than thank you.

JSF is right about "Dunbar" not going back to rejoin the Cavalry at his post on the outskirts of the territory. In the movie he went back to retrieve his "dairy" and notes of his time out on the edge of the western territory, at least the edge as far as the whites were concerned. His story is one of understanding, after years of civil war and now the war against the native peoples, he describes in his book how he came to understand and care about humans that had a different way of life; different than the one he was used to.

Someone on YouTube described it as Wind in His Hair, once a bitter enemy to all whites, also came to understand that not all whites wanted his death. He came to understand Dunbar, a white man. Just as Dunbar came to understand that the natives had their own way of life, as noble as any human being. He befriended Wind in his Hair and discovered his humanity. The imagery is unforgettable, poignant and remarkable for many reasons: one is showing the Native man on top of the cliff shouting to those below and declaring his friendship and understanding. The imagery of the native on top and making the statement for all in the film and those of us watching the film - here I am a Native American finally getting my say.
I am not your enemy, I am your friend. The symbolism was utterly breathtaking.

Costner made a wise decision to use that scene, because it spoke volumes. He rode off to save the tribe he was traveling with. And he showed the Native American as a human with a heart Now, some may say that here is a white man thinking so much of himself so as to say that only he could save the Native American. I could understand that. But here's my take on that final scene, although it could be considered arrogant on Costner's part, I think he, as hero, steps aside on places the spotlight on Wind in His Hair. It is a double hero shot, the white man and Native American, riding off into the sunset.

He gets his book, which is his account of how he came to understand and appreciate his fellow man, the American native to this land.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.

---

Which part? Why?
Did you want him to stay so the Army would hunt down and

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME