AdamDriggers

Sherilyn Fenn deserves more credit. The crew said she was cavalier about her dead boyfriend but there is a scene where its revealed she doesn't remember what happened that night because they beat her and left her on the side of the road. Also she confronts Nick Cassavettes and gets him to admit to her it happened, confirming for her that her flashbacks were true and not just nightmares as she previously presumed. But she is admittedly still non-phased by those events. Also, The Wraith seemed to only be able to kill after besting the victim in a contest. This is confirmed by Sheen beating Gutter Boy and Skank in a impromptu motorcycle versus car race then the next day being able to just kill them both.

So according to imdb and wikipedia before nine other writers got their hands on it the original writer conceived this script as a dark allegory about child abuse? So what kind of movie did he want to make? Were there jokes in his script? How did it end? This sounds like a good movie. Does she abuse the daughter and reveal her alien nature to her until eventually killing her all the while the Dad never believes that these terrible things are happening? Or does the Dad eventually choose his daughter over his new wife and is forced to kill her to save the child’s life—only then learning that he made the right choice as her human form withers away to reveal a terrible beast? The original writer was credited just as “Jerico” and also was credited for writing the 1993 John Goodman movie ‘Matinee”. Did some research and he/she is Jerico Stone, who sued the Writer’s Guild in 1996 for not getting proper credit for his/her writing of “Matinee”. Seems Hollywood was not quite ready for the ideas of “Jerico”. Here is a link to the court case record: http://law.justia.co...01/1312/596403/

I think its clear that until Keanu changes the timeline, they have never met. So when she saw the accident she had no memory of him yet, he implanted that memory like he did the tree.

So this story begins (For Keanu’s character) in 2004 in the month of February according to the events of the film. It’s Valentine’s Day in 2006 when Sandra sees the car accident so that means Keanu (experiencing the same day two years prior) is also in mid-February—but in 2004. Well this makes the film more confusing. We see that they are basically experiencing the same day every time they interact with the mailbox and the tree etc. (They say it’s the same day but in a different year at one point.) BUT 2004 WAS A FUCKING LEAP YEAR! February would have had a different amount of days for each of them. At a certain point instead of showing up right away the replies to Sandra’s letters should show up a day later right? Because they end up being 2 years and 1 day apart at a certain point right? Ugh... I guess the writer/s of this film didn’t think about that. I’m more confused, honestly, by the motivation for either character to fall in love with the other? A few letters? Are they that lonely? These are good looking, gainfully employed people…

I have a very personal story about this film that June will relate to. My mother and I used to watch horror films together when I was 8, 9, 10 years old from our local video store and for a few years it was our tradition. She also really loved Stephen King and when his tv mini-series specials or films would come out we would rent them or watch them on Pay-Per-View. We watched Sleepwalkers when it came out on Pay-Per-View. I remember her being very excited about it. As the film began and it was revealed the mother and son were involved in an incestuous relationship my mom paused the film and basically had the same reaction as June. She had to talk it out and we had to agree that they were just posing as a mother and son and were not really that when not in human form. However—the film is filled with contextual clues that suggest that they are indeed mother and son. The last line of the mother is, “You killed my only son.” over and over. But it’s funny because I remembered they were faking it so I guess I blocked it all out because it was too awkward sitting there watching this alone with my mother. Or I was too young to realize and my mom convinced me. We also watched Body Parts together and I had school the next morning and she thought it would be too violent so she made me go to bed. I wanted to see it so I asked to sleep next to her in her bed while she watched it, but she made me keep my eyes shut. I therefore listened to the entire film with no visuals. Weird experience. Hearing the plot made no sense to me, I REMEMBER IT SEEMING SO OUTLANDISH EVEN TO MY YOUNG MIND!

It's weird because even though I found it a lesser film, Highlander 2 both made sense as a stand alone and as an entry into the continuity of the Highlander films. I guess at the end of the day--the way my mind works--I get the editor of the final cut's vision? Here's how it worked for me--all drawn from dialog in the films: This film is both prequel and sequel to the original. Never in this film do we return to the time period/events covered in the first film--but this film expects you to understand they took place. Lambert and Connery are banished from their home planet to Earth, which serves as a kind of prison for beings from their planet because immortality is a curse--they wander without being able to raise a family without fear of watching them grow old and die. Lambert asks Connery if they will know each other and he says "not at first." Now you need to understand at this point in the story we go back to the first film and they both wake up on Earth and don't remember their home planet or each other. Also, they are sent to different countries and different times.They take on their lives until they remember they are immortal. Connery (who is Egyptian and then lives another life in Spain) remembers first and searches Earth for Lambert for centuries until he hears of him in the Highlands. He trains Lambert to fight the other immortals and then gets killed. Lambert kills all other immortals (this is the end of the first film) and then in the second film we see he is given mortality as The Prize ( he got his choice between mortality or going home to his planet) and then lives until he grows old. After growing old more immortals come to Earth making him immortal again as he is no longer the last survivor. Because of the blood oath they took on their home planet Connery and Lambert are forever bonded and Connery told him if he called to him he would come no matter what. He calls to him when the immortals return and this bring Connery back to life. Then Connery and Lambert fight the other immortals until Lambert is again the last one left. Not great, but if you pay attention to every word its all there. But why should you have to?

I can offer some unique insight here as I owned the DVD and I listened to the commentary for the ENTIRE FILM WITH JOHN CARPENTER AND HIS CO-WRITER KURT RUSSELL. They basically said that they conceptualized and wrote this film as a parody of the first film, and 80's films that were similar. The film was supposed to be a series of gags that sent up the original in a fun way for the fans. It was, according to Carpenter, a comment on how the genre was dead. The studio apparently (and according to Carpenter and Russell) did not understand and re-cut the film to remove key dialog and other elements to make the film come across as more serious and an actual effort in the genre. Still though...was that just an excuse cause they saw how bad it was? They also mentioned they wanted a running gag referring to a second unseen film, escape from cleveland, so that this film would be the third in the series--referencing the many trilogy's from the 80's.

Despite what Jason said I thought the film balanced two subplots well. That being the running story-lines of the lead guy getting close to the lead gal both as himself slowly, and separately as the mysterious biker. At the end when she tells him its perfect and its like she gets two for the price of one (or some line like that) I thought it was very economical writing. She was a girl torn between different desires and she got everything she wanted. This is one reason, I think, why so many girls like this film. I know many like June who grew up re-watching the VHS. It was like Scarface for guys of the same age.

When Cage is walking down the street with that board covered in blood he bumps into a girl on roller skates handing out leaflets in a spandex "roller derby girl" outfit with a helmet that has a faux-hawk that reads 'Ad Skank" on the side. Was this a real business in the 1980's in New York. I google searched it and could not find any info. Does anybody remember these girls? Ad skanks? "Have this skank hand out your ad!"

Jason, Paul, and June get it all wrong. It’s actually pretty clear that he is not a vampire in this film and that this is a story of a mental breakdown. I do not think it’s as ambiguous as they say. First off, NICK CAGE IS NEVER BITTEN BY ANYBODY OR ANTHING! Not the bat, not the girl, nada. I rewatched that scene and the bat never bites him and when he exits the room to meet the girl in the hall he does not put his hand to his neck as Paul remembers and we can see he has no marks. Then there are a few more scenes before we see him get bit by the girl and there are no marks so clearly—no bite. Then when the girl bites him it’s revealed this was not real by his waking up and serving coffee and talking to thin air—the girl was never there he just saw her and had a fantasy. Later we learn they don’t know each other. In these scenes in the morning he has no marks and then, he cuts himself shaving and for the FIRST TIME HAS MARKS ON HIS NECK BUT THEY ARE JUST FROM SHAVING! He wears the Band-Aid from then on. Every time he is with the girl it is a dream or fantasy, as is illustrated by her appearing in his office out of nowhere and then disappearing. Later Cage’s character shows us he is not a vampire by seeing his own reflection but acting like he can’t. This film would have shown no reflection if he was a vampire—this is a weird movie but not as directionless as the HDTGM team suggests. As for the bite murder scene, Paul was remembering it wrong again because they clearly show Cage take the plastic teeth out before biting the girl and put them back in after the murder—he used his regular teeth to kill her. At the end the obvious fantasy sequence with the doctor is the last and final revelation that yes, this man is crazy and is not a vampire. I just wonder if those mimes were actors or other real people from New York that day.

Did some research and apparently this movie was released and promoted more as a comedy than action or teen romance? It was actually nominated for a 2014 Teen Choice award for Best Comedy and Choice Movie Actress: Comedy for Zoey Deutch. Can you imagine the makers of this film and the studio going, "Man, this thing is hilarious!" Zoey lost to Emma Roberts for We're the Millers. The other nominees were Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues: Christina Applegate, Blended: Drew Barrymore, and The Other Woman: Cameron Diaz. The other nominees for best comedy were The Other Woman which won, Ride Along, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, and Blended. HOW DID VAMPIRE ACADEMY GET ON THIS LIST! How did Anchorman 2 not win this! Teens are dumb.

Hey guys, first post, I too caught up after 2 years and am finally able to participate. Am I wrong or was there two scenes with women asking to go pee? One seemed like a weird call back to the other. Did they mention that on the podcast? I know they mentioned one pee scene. As far as the numbers thing. I thought it was weird Josh Lucas says number 2 is lucky. Its not a lucky prime number. It made sense for Foxx to say 3 was lucky because 3 is a lucky prime number. But 2 is just a regular prime number. In number theory, a lucky number is a natural number in a set which is generated by a certain "sieve". This sieve is similar to the Sieve of Eratosthenes that generates the primes, but it eliminates numbers based on their position in the remaining set, instead of their value (or position in the initial set of natural numbers). A lucky prime is a lucky number that is prime. The first few are 3, 7, 13, 31, 37, 43, 67, 73, 79, 127, 151, 163, 193 and so on...SO 2 is a prime number (as is 1) but 3 is the first lucky prime. When Foxx called 3 the lucky prime number it made him seem like a math guy. When Josh Lucas says his thing later it reframes it to make Foxx just look like a weirdo who had a RainMan-like fixation on prime numbers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096156/