doxrus

This is the parking area of Virtual Light - the secretive, high security headquarters of a super villain bent on ruling the world. Did someone ride their bike there?

More things I take issue with: 1) Would you trust your life in cyberspace to a dog, putting his slobber and teeth marks over a vital computer disc? 2) The filmmaker want us to believe this dystopia is filthy (for the poor, anyway), but I'm not buying it. Even the seemingly grimy street scenes look like a slightly messy theme park. The kids have very theatrically placed smudges on their cheeks, and their subway car-home looks pretty clean to me. 3) Our hosts mentioned the ripoffs of Indiana Jones, Stars Wars and other films. The street scenes are so blatantly stolen from Blade Runner. 4) During the escape from Virtual Light HQ, Trace's weak punches have no effect on a guard. Yet he somehow has the strength, with no leverage (he's being held in the air by the guard) to rip a video monitor off the wall and smash it over the guy's head. 5) One of the "camera-lasers" controlled by Jobe, cuts through a very thick table, but only puts a slice through Trace's shirt and barely scratches his arm. 6) Note that the headsets for the virtual world demo are called "Eye Phones" 7) One more line of stupid dialogue: I don't remember who said it, but when the team plans to fight back against Jobe, someone says, "We've got to make him angry enough to destroy himself." What? Why would he do that? This is your plan?

So much to unpack in the movie. For starters, here are some dumbass lines of dialogue: 1) When Peter first sees Dr. Trace, he says, "You're alive! I thought you were dead," obviously expecting some kind of explanation. But Trace just says, "No time for that." How long would it take him to tell Peter how he survived? 2) Walker to Senator Greenspan: "My lap is your lap, Senator." 3) When Jobe begins wreaking havoc, one news report concludes with "Few see an end to the continuing chaos." Hey, tell us about the ones who do!! 4) When his guards begin bailing on him, Walker tries to stop them, with "Stay here! You can't go anywhere!" Huh? What does that mean? Strangely, these lines are looped, by what sounds like a different actor, with an accent, no less. 5) When Jobe presents his vision of utopia, he says, "Live in Eden. Without hunger. Without famine. Without temptation." Well, I guess if there was no hunger, you'd pretty much not have a famine problem. And no temptation? Are people really yearning for that? Is that all this wondrous cyber world has to offer?

This film was written and produced by two two-time Oscar nominees! Pen Densham and John Watson were nominated for their doc short, DON'T MESS WITH BILL (about an 84-year-old self defense teacher), and a live action short, LIFE TIMES NINE. The next film they produced? BACKDRAFT!

Why does Gnorm do the ancient comedy gesture of "hands on cheeks" (meaning "Oh my god!") after he tries to touch Sam's butt? "Blind Screaming Giant" = great name for a band.

I have to admit there is one shot that I found rather moving - when Gnorm goes to the beach and sees the ocean for the first time. But completely out of place tonally with the rest of the film.

This is yet another HDTGM film in which people are far too blase about seeing an alien/monster/creature, and here, treating him like a "freak" human, but not immediately contacting all media outlets, government and private science institutions, etc.

Perhaps the most revolting image in HDTGM film history?

I watched the censored TV version on YouTube, so missed the strip club scene and the extended Gnorm gnude scene.

So much to unpack in this film: 1) It utilizes the racist trope of "ethnic" people who utilize or connect with occult forces: The Romanian grandmother who applies the curse; the Black street psychic ("Fixer") who shows Kaz his true nature; and Latinx Sonia, who has visions of the Mangler's attack on her sister. 2) Denny is rather infantilized. She has dolls on her bed, wears bear-footed slippers, and has a skirt with big appliqued Scottish terriers and fire hydrants. 3) Denny's position is a metaphor for domestic violence: even when she finds out that her Kaz turns into a monster when aroused, she thinks things will still work out, and that she can "fix" him. He later complains that she's trying to change him, a common male grievance. 4) Phil's fake monster hand just seems to be a clunky attempt at a red herring - that he's the Mangler but a "regular" man who disguises his crimes as those from a monster. There's no diegetic need for him to use that hand when kidnapping Denny, it's just for the audience. This is all soon dropped when we find he's an actual monster. 5) Yes, there is a castle in Central Park - Belvedere Castle, of course not as large or elaborate as Phil's. But how is there a Monster Castle in the middle of Central Park that no one has noticed?

He didn't know his own monster strength, and threw it long, past the water.

My first thought on seeing Signor's hair coat was Buffalo Bill's "skin suit" in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (the book was released three years after this film!) Add to that the creepy "hair" hallway entrance to the child slave labor factory, and you have one deeply unsettling, scarifying "children's" film. Wearing body parts of your kidnapped victims?

Can I just say - no offense to Tall, Jason and Diane - but some times I find reading this message board funnier than the show!

Why does Connie's pube hair vanish at some point? Did I miss something? Did he command it not only to stop growing, but to recede? If Signor was selling all those brushes, were artists everywhere creating magical paintings, too? That would flood the market, and make Signor's paintings worthless. If the homeless ghosts felt so grateful to Michael for his largesse and gave him the formula, why did they give him "a scare" to make him bald in the first place? Is the Dad mentally ill, or just a bizarre parent? When Michael first becomes bald, Dad tries to comfort him as if he were a two- or three-year-old: instead of just saying, "Don't worry, it will grow back" (as you would to a 12-year-old), he has Michael feel the stubble on his face to explain how hair grows back? And what is with Dad's hair? It's not even a comb-over, it's just an tangled, unruly mess. Perhaps a symbol of his completely messed up life? Jason said both of Signor's brothers spoke with French accents. Though it's terrible, the Doctor's accent sounded German to me. Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke: three brothers who live in the same city speak with different accents? Signor's child slave labor factory reminded me of THE 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T. (1953)

But they're just one family, with a closely guarded tradition that even Pistachio was unaware of. It's a conundrum: they're involved in international events, yet their numbers are small - the film presents Fabbrizio as the only working member of the clan. Not exactly a global network. And if they've worked around the world for centuries, you'd think they'd have lost their accents. Also, if you're a super secret spy family, why not blend in to your surroundings, rather than stand out in this way?

Okay, the Disguiseys are supposed to be Italian. Pistachio was probably born and raised in the US. But one of them impersonated Abe Lincoln. This means that they'd been in the United States for at least four generations before Grandfather (Harold Gould). What gives? Are there American and Italian branches of the family? Did they come to the US in the early 19th century, then return to Italy late in the century? Incidentally, Harold Gould is only 17 years older than James Brolin, and Brolin only 15 years older than Carvey. Those Disguiseys breed young. But Pistachio is going to be the outlier, at least 47 when he has a kid with Jennifer.

I've survived through so many awful films, but I couldn't stomach this one after about 15 minutes, and had to turn it off. The misogyny and overdetermination of June's "ugliness" was just too much to bear. And - who the hell holds a torch for their first grade crush, not having seen them since then? Is this guy so pathetic and out of ideas that his best plan is to chase after someone from elementary school?

It occurs to me that the Second Opinion writers on Amazon often have positive, strong personal connections to #HDTHM films and the Team makes fun of them. How is this different from responses of the members Team Fred? So if someone loves Gooby or Xanadu they’re a moron, but not so if they love DDF?

Yes – we’re having parallel debates which can never meet. The minute someone says, “This film means a great deal to me” regardless of its actual artistic merit, or defends the film's (ostensible) flaws as integral to that meaning, there is no response, and the critical discussion is over (You can't say, "No, the film doesn't mean that for you") If we want to meet on common ground, we need to agree: what kind of discussion is this?

Team Sanity is not siding with the mom, or Charles, or anyone. We think the film is crappy, and is not actually presenting any of the themes Team Fred says it does.

Regarding whether Fred is in young Lizzie's mind or an independent entity - Fred does some things that would not have been possible for Lizzie to accomplish. For example, the massive amount of mud Fred dumps on the dining room table. And if we look at young Lizzie's behavior from her mother's point of view - Lizzie is not just acting out or misbehaving, she is seriously disturbed if not completely unbalanced. Yes, her family life isn't the greatest, but it's not as if she's living the life of Sybil or Carrie.

IMAO, there are two possible explanations for June and Jason's apologia of the film. One, that they really believed what they were saying, and only dug in their heels in deeper when challenged by Casey and Tall. I can understand an aggressive and passionate defense of FORBIDDEN GAMES or PAN'S LABYRINTH, but this film? It just doesn't deserve the effort. Or, two, it was all an act, and perhaps as mentioned elsewhere here - all of HDTGM is just an put-on. Really, are we to believe that June has based her entire career on this film? Can we accept that the screenwriters (Davis and Fingleton) and director (de Jong) were somehow able to create the masterpiece that June and Jason describe, when they exhibit nothing even close to it in the rest of their careers?

Team Sanity. I think June and Jason are defending the movie based on its themes, not on the filmmaking. Because they love the themes so much, they're far too forgiving of the film's lousy writing, acting, direction, etc. And they're also giving the screenwriters too much credit for what they perceive the film to be saying. Do they really believe that the writers of HURRICANE HEIST - and not much else - have this much insight into female psychology and gender relations? And when challenged by Paul and Casey on points they can't defend, they just fall back weakly on "It's only a movie."

Do we call him John or Tall now?

After Joe "kills" his father, Pete (Peter Fonda) says they're going to bury Mike in potter's field, which as everyone knows (except maybe the screenwriter), is a graveyard for unknown or indigent people, often with unmarked plots. The next scene is a normal funeral at a regular cemetery, with a standard headstone for Mike. This is not potter's field.