||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
|News||Books||Female Sociopaths||Recommended Links||Films depicting female sociopaths||Female bullies||Movies about Infidelity|
|Dangerous Liaisons||The Last Seduction||Fatal Attraction||The Devil Wears Prada||Body Heat||Basic Instinct||The Proposal|
|The Good Wife||Bonfire of vanities||American Beauty||August Osage County||The Godfather Part II||Suspicion||A Clockwork Orange|
|Scarface||No Country for Old Men||Misery||The Silence of the Lambs||Wall Street|
|Communication with Corporate Psychopaths||Defending yourself||Observing and Documenting Behavior of Corporate Psychopaths||The Hare Psychopathy Checklist||Humor||Random Findings||Etc|
Psychopathy in film is often portrayed in an exaggerated fashion to enhance the dramatic properties of a character or characters to render them memorable. Typically, a psychopathic character in a film is often in the role of a villain, where the general characteristics of a psychopath are useful to facilitate conflict and danger. Because the definitions and criteria for psychopathy have varied over the years and continue to change even now, many characters in notable films may have been designed to fall under the category of a psychopath at the time of the film's production or release, but not necessarily in subsequent years.
Early representations of psychopaths in film were often designed with a poor or incomplete understanding of a psychopathic personality: they were often caricatured as sadistic, unpredictable, sexually depraved, and emotionally unstable (manic) characters with a compulsion to engage in random violence and destruction, usually with a series of bizarre mannerisms such as giggling, laughing, or facial tics. The public's overall unfamiliarity with mental disorders made this depiction acceptable and even perceived as "realistic" at the time of release.
Up until the late 1950s, American cinematic conventions usually relegated the psychopath to roles
of genre villains such as gangsters, mad scientists, supervillains, and many types of generic criminals.
Even homosexuality was displayed as a type of psychopathic behavior in films such as They Only Kill
Their Masters (1972) prior to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.
Examples of this type are Tommy Udo (Richard Widmark) in Kiss of Death, Cody Jarrett (James Cagney) in White Heat, and Antonio 'Tony' Camonte (Paul Muni) in the 1932 version of Scarface. One exception to this depiction during this period is the character of child murderer Hans Beckert (Peter Lorre) in the 1931 Fritz Lang film M. Lorre portrays Beckert as an outwardly unremarkable man tormented by a compulsion to ritualistically murder children, a substantially more realistic depiction of what would eventually be known as a serial killer.
The arrests and resulting notoriety of serial killers John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Ted Bundy led to an additional increase in the way psychopathy was both perceived and portrayed in film. An increasing interest in realistic depictions of psychopaths led to the formation of a new hybrid of traditional psychopaths from early film and late-19th Century literature with the high-functioning behaviors detected in psychopaths such as Bundy and Dahmer.
An example of this type of psychopathic character is that of the cannibalistic psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter, as portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in the Academy Award-winning 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs. Lecter is intelligent and sophisticated, and his disarming charisma and wit disguise his true nature as a psychopath. He spends most of the film in a prison cell, taunting protagonist Clarice Starling with clues to the identity of another serial killer, Buffalo Bill, in exchange for intimate details of Starling's troubled childhood
Two prominent sociopath in movies are
Tony Montana, Al Pacino in Scarface (1983) Why do we like Al Pacino's portrayal of the Cuban sociopath Tony Montana so much? It's because he basically could not give a fuck about anyone or anything. Of course, polite society demands these people get their comeuppance, which Montana certainly does in a thrilling, blood-soaked finale. But there is something about him that we respect. Even when faced with having his limbs chopped off with a chainsaw he does not flinch. He sees a girl he likes; he gets her. Simple.
Han Gruber, Alan Rickman in Die Hard (1988)
No Country For Old Men. Forget the dodgy haircut, Javier Bardem's contract killer Anton Chigurh (No Country For Old Men (2007) is possibly one of the scariest sociopaths ever to appear on the silver screen. He is calculating, creative, ruthless and, what makes it worse, he gets away with it.
Kathy Bates in Misery. Only Alan Rickman could make such a merciless and cold-bloodied killer so charming. He's so good, he almost upstages Bruce Willis almost.
Among other films that might deserve your attention we can mentions:
Numerous characters in television shows are informally described as psychopaths by the actors who play the parts. Examples include Natalie Buxton in Bad Girls, Sean Slater and Michael Moon in EastEnders, and Dexter Morgan in the American show 
Here is the list of villains from Wikipedia AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains. As you can see considerable part of them can be viewed as psychopath.
|Dr. Hannibal Lecter||Anthony Hopkins||The Silence of the Lambs|
|Norman Bates||Anthony Perkins||Psycho|
|Nurse Ratched||Louise Fletcher||One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest|
|Mr. Potter||Lionel Barrymore||It's a Wonderful Life ( Amazon.com )|
|Alex Forrest||Glenn Close||Fatal Attraction|
|Phyllis Dietrichson||Barbara Stanwyck||Double Indemnity (Amazon.com )|
|The Evil Queen||Voice of Lucille La Verne||Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs|
|Michael Corleone||Al Pacino||The Godfather Part II|
|Alex DeLarge||Malcolm McDowell||A Clockwork Orange|
|Noah Cross||John Huston||Chinatown|
|Annie Wilkes||Kathy Bates||Misery|
|Captain Bligh||Charles Laughton||Mutiny on the Bounty|
|Mrs. Eleanor Iselin||Angela Lansbury||The Manchurian Candidate|
|Eve Harrington||Anne Baxter||All About Eve|
|Gordon Gekko||Michael Douglas||Wall Street|
|Jack Torrance||Jack Nicholson||The Shining|
|Cody Jarrett||James Cagney||White Heat|
|Max Cady||Robert Mitchum||Cape Fear|
|Reverend Harry Powell||Robert Mitchum||The Night of the Hunter|
|Travis Bickle||Robert De Niro||Taxi Driver|
|Mrs. Danvers||Judith Anderson||Rebecca|
|Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker||Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway||Bonnie and Clyde|
|Count Dracula||Bela Lugosi||Dracula|
|Dr. Szell||Laurence Olivier||Marathon Man|
|J.J. Hunsecker||Burt Lancaster||Sweet Smell of Success|
|Frank Booth||Dennis Hopper||Blue Velvet|
|Harry Lime||Orson Welles||The Third Man|
|Caesar Enrico Bandello||Edward G. Robinson||Little Caesar|
|Cruella De Vil||Voice by Betty Lou Gerson||One Hundred and One Dalmatians|
|Freddy Krueger||Robert Englund||A Nightmare on Elm Street|
|Joan Crawford||Faye Dunaway||Mommie Dearest|
|Tom Powers||James Cagney||The Public Enemy|
|Regina Giddens||Bette Davis||The Little Foxes|
|Baby Jane Hudson||Bette Davis||What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?|
|The Joker||Jack Nicholson||Batman|
|Hans Gruber||Alan Rickman||Die Hard|
|Tony Camonte||Paul Muni||Scarface|
|Keyser Soze/Verbal Kint||Kevin Spacey||The Usual Suspects|
|Auric Goldfinger||Gert Frφbe (voiced by Michael Collins)||Goldfinger|
|Detective Alonzo Harris||Denzel Washington||Training Day|
Classic in this genre is Fatal Attraction. This film depicts a strong career woman Alex (played by Glenn Close ) who is at the same time psychopathic. The plot is trial -- it is about adultery, but there is a twist in it which makes is valuable for all who are interested in female sociopath topics. Happily married New York lawyer Dan Callagher is not satisfied with his family life and when he has a chance as it was raining after his Saturday office meeting and his new acquaintance took him under her umbrella, he decided to have an affair with this woman. It's pretty educational to watch the Douglas character's psychological panic as movie progresses...
Notice Glenn Close' envy. She's envious. Jealous at her target's perfect family. Also notice that the more Michael Douglas rejects Glenn Close the more she stalks him. She can't handle being rejected. She becomes an obsessed, vindictive, completely out-of-control, raging nightmare. (By the way, I have never had any personal experience with a single-stalker. Only gang stalking. And gang stalking is a lot more subtle, insidious and scheming).
The film has also profound effect on men. Close who play the central heroine of the film was quoted in 2008 as saying,
"Men still come up to me and say, 'You scared the shit out of me.' Sometimes they say, 'You saved my marriage.'"
Fatal Attraction is a 1987 American psychological thriller film directed by Adrian Lyne and starring Michael Douglas, Glenn Close, and Anne Archer. The film centers on a married Manhattan man who has a weekend affair with a woman who refuses to allow it to end, resulting in her becoming obsessed with him. The film was adapted by James Dearden from an earlier 1980 short film by Dearden for British television, Diversion.
Movies depicting BPD
Apr 01, 2021 | www.unz.com
For years now, readers have been urging me to review Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971), which adapts Anthony Burgess' 1962 novel of the same name. I have resisted, because although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated, so I didn't want to watch it again. Of course I had first watched it decades ago. But maybe I would see it differently if I gave it another chance. So I approached it with an open mind. But I was right the first time.
A Clockwork Orange is set in Great Britain in a not-too-distant future. Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his three buddies are violent hooligans who engage in rape, assault, robbery, and wanton destruction. The movie opens with an amphetamine-fueled crime spree. They beat up an old drunk, brawl with another gang, run people off the road while joy riding, then use a confidence trick ("There's been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?") to invade a couple's home, whereupon they beat the man, rape his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply be killed.
Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely breeds resentment. One night they decide to rob a wealthy woman's house. The old accident trick does not work, so Alex breaks in. There is a struggle. She attacks him with a bust of Beethoven, so he kills her with a sculpture of a penis. Hearing sirens, he exits, whereupon his ex-friends clobber him with a bottle and leave him for the police.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Alex is imprisoned for murder. He seeks to ingratiate himself with the authorities by feigning Christian piety. (As a violent sociopath, he finds the Old Testament more to his liking.)
When a new Left-wing government comes into power, they want to free up prison space for political prisoners, so they introduce an experimental cure for his violent sociopathy: the Ludovico technique, which is basically a form of Pavlovian conditioning. Alex is the test subject. He is injected with a nausea-producing drug then forced to watch films of violence, including sexual violence. Eventually, he can't even think of violence without becoming violently ill. Pronounced cured, he is released into society.
Newly paroled, Alex bumps into the bum that he assaulted, who recognizes him and wants revenge. He calls together his fellow bums to beat Alex, whose Ludovico conditioning makes it impossible for him to fight back.
Let that be a lesson to you.
When the mob of hobos is broken up by two cops, they turn out to be two of Alex's old gang, the very ones he humiliated. Eager to exact further revenge, they beat him mercilessly and abandon him in the countryside. Alex is helpless to resist.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Alex wanders through the countryside until he takes refuge at the home of the very couple he and his gang brutalized. Ironic, huh? The husband was crippled by the beating. The wife has died and been replaced with a gigantic muscular dork named Julian. The husband figures out who Alex is and drugs him. Then he and some of his friends, who oppose the government that introduced the Ludovico technique, try to drive Alex to commit suicide, hoping to create a scandal that will embarrass the government. Alex throws himself from a window and is severely injured but does not die.
To contain the scandal, the Justice Minister throws the cripple in prison and tries to win Alex's favor by tending to his wounds. While unconscious, he is also given brain surgery to reverse the Ludovico technique. The happy ending is that Alex returns to being a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism to pure cynicism in the end. Apparently, the book's final chapter was "redemptive," but this was omitted as being contrived -- as if that weren't true of the whole story.
But isn't this all redeemed by a "deep message" about human freedom? No, not really, because the moral psychology of A Clockwork Orange is remarkably crude.
The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don't necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of his violent sociopathy.
Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that. Alex does not feel sick with empathy for victims, he just feels sick. And his physiological response makes no moral distinctions between violence meted out to the deserving and the undeserving. When he is attacked, he can't defend himself, because even violence in self-defense makes him sick.
Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn't exactly make such a "cure" for crime implausible.
Burgess's "deep" objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex's freedom, which takes away his humanity. Alex, being a sociopath, takes pleasure in hurting innocent people. The Ludovico treatment teaches him to feel disgust at violence.
But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex's behavior? Is that also a dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so.
Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.
Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum .
The Ludovico technique and Burgess' alternative both depend on a pat dualism between body and mind, which leaves no place for what the ancients called virtues and the moderns called moral sentiments. For the ancients, virtue is rooted in habit. For moral sentiments theorists, our ability to perceive the good is caught up in feelings like empathy and disgust. But to the Ludovico technique, virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach. From the chaplain's point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath's lack of virtue or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.
But isn't Kubrick's treatment of this material brilliant? No, not really. Kubrick's treatment of sex and violence veers between the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets, and dreadful over-acting. The whole production reminded me of the comics of R. Crumb, who puts his prodigious talent to work churning out pornography, grotesquerie, and world-destroying cynicism. Crumb obviously hates America. He especially hates women. Likewise, the director of A Clockwork Orange obviously hates everything about Great Britain. He also takes particular pleasure in the mockery and degradation of women. Handling such material with technical skill does not redeem it. Indeed, by making it seductive, Kubrick actually it makes it worse.
A Clockwork Orange is violence-porn and porn-porn combined with a middle-brow, moralistic "message" and some classical music. But these function merely as an alibi, like the interviews in Playboy . A Clockwork Orange is obscene in the literal sense of the word: it should not be watched.
nsa , says: April 1, 2021 at 2:56 pm GMT 6.0 days agoJus' Sayin'... , says: April 1, 2021 at 3:36 pm GMT 6.0 days ago
The Burgess novel explored a simple question: is it good enough if someone does the right thing (abhors gratuitous violence and carnage) for the wrong reason (Pavlovian programming).
The novel incorporated a bastardized lexicon with a short unnecessary dictionary at the very end to help the reader along. As with his also futuristic Wanting Seed, Burgess's Clockwork is a satire of the absurd lefty politics of his day. The novel has aged well, as sixty years later the lefty politics of the day are even more absurd.John Johnson , says: April 1, 2021 at 4:45 pm GMT 6.0 days ago
When Kubrick's movie version of "The Clockwork Orange" premiered, Burgess was asked what he thought of it. After a half century, I cannot recall Burgess's exact words but they were to the effect that the movie perfectly illustrated the points he had made in his novel.
Most naively interpreted this as an endorsement of the movie. However, Burgess was adept with words. I understood this to be a subtle barb. Burgess's words had an alternative implication, i.e. that the movie's sugar coating of violence and vicious sexuality, its romanticized depiction of the protagonist, Alex, and the critical acclaim and popularity, which the movie achieved, actually demonstrated how thoroughly society was degenerating into the amoral dystopia which Burgess had envisioned in his novel.
OTOH, my personal opinion is that despite the moral repugnance which the movie engendered for me it is, like all of Kubrick's movies, a cinematic masterpiece. It's an unfortunate fact that some art can be immoral and even hostile to truth yet still have aesthetic virtue.Macumazahn , says: April 1, 2021 at 4:50 pm GMT 6.0 days ago
The problem is that Kubrick seems to take pleasure in creating the violence and rape scenes which throws the whole movie off.
It's like he can't decide if Alex should be his unique and wonderful self even if it means raping and killing people. The scene of him of setting his rank in the gang is a celebration of violence as an art form.
Kubrick clearly thought that Alex beating the woman with a giant d-k must have been great fun and anyone in the stodgy British chattering class probably had it coming anyways. There seems to be nothing wrong with cruising the British countryside for a bit of the ultraviolence as long as you have style and can show off your good taste by listening to Beethoven.
Are we supposed to pity Alex when the husband tries to kill him? Kubrick seems to think so but who could blame a husband that wants to avenge his wife? According to Kubrick he is really boring and went gay anyways.
The movie is a mess but still worth watching as a sort of shock to the senses. Some say the book is better which while true on a story level it's also a bit of chore since there is so much fictitious slang. My copy in fact had a compendium slang dictionary. So you spend half the time looking up all these words that the author made up. Fun.
What I don't get is why anyone would want you to review the movie. I would put it towards to top of the 70s rape and violence trash heap but that isn't saying much. If anything I have more respect for the blatantly violent biker flicks like Wild Angels because they at least aren't trying to pretend that they have some deep message about society.
It's one of those movies that would have much worse reviews if a famous director wasn't attached to it. Great acting by Malcom though and a shame he was surrounded by amateurs.@RahanJohn Johnson , says: April 1, 2021 at 5:25 pm GMT 5.9 days ago
You should check out his The Wanting Seed .@Rahan psychopath obviously on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts.Mr. Ed , says: April 1, 2021 at 5:53 pm GMT 5.9 days ago
The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering to them.
It would be like creating a movie about the degenerate nature of porn but the first 20 minutes is a gang bang. Oh but the main characters will later change and find complexity in their predicament. It's a social criticism of modern society you see.Trinity , says: April 1, 2021 at 5:58 pm GMT 5.9 days ago
I agree with TL that the movie was long and dull. Have not read any of Burgess.SafeNow , says: April 1, 2021 at 6:59 pm GMT 5.9 days ago
This had to be one of the dumbest movies that I ever TRIED to watch. Was underway on a ship and they played this movie for us to watch, got up and left after only maybe 15-20 minutes into the film. "Overrated" is too mild a word for it. GARBAGE FILM. Out of 5 stars I don't even give it half a star.Rahan , says: April 2, 2021 at 3:41 am GMT 5.5 days ago
Good review. I will add one positive point: It is relevant to current events. Roger Ebert pointed out that Kubrick is playing with the idea that in a world where the ruling pattern of thought is criminal insanity, one might as well be criminally insane. This turned out to be prescient, because the conversion to woke insanity has taken hold. I could give dozens of examples, but I will stay with the Beethoven theme of the movie. Beethoven has recently been proclaimed an "above average " composer, and a supremicist, worthy of cancellation. Oxford is now debating canceling musical notation if the world is crazy, might as well join them.@Mr. Ed is meaningless, the client of the police algorithm is a woman with testicles, which she had implanted just to enjoy the testosterone boost, but still identifies as a woman. Just like everyone, she only has virtual sex, because real sex is for degenerate fascist perverts known as "piggies". The moment a piggie man and a piggie woman start making out, the closest electronic gadgets start blasting feminist propaganda on how disgusting and humiliating it is for a woman to be banged by a man.R.G. Camara , says: April 2, 2021 at 4:10 am GMT 5.5 days ago
And of course, the new iPhuck 10 is a semi-AI sex toy for the upper middle classes, which randomly goes into various BDSM and fetish modes, in order to comply with diversity mandates.Exile , says: April 2, 2021 at 4:20 am GMT 5.5 days ago
One reading of the film is as a dark, slanted allegory for England's history as a conquering nation from 1066 to its eventual post-WW2 shrinking to be too afraid to fight or conquer anymore.
The droogs represent England, or English martial spirit. As the the film begins, they assault an old drunk hobo singing Molly Malone (representing Ireland), a group of similar ruffians (representing Scotland) who are about to rape a girl and jump off a stage (the Scottish Highlands, or perhaps just north of the English border generally) to fight the English, and, finally, successful assault against a cultured, peace-loving old man and his beautiful wife (representing either Wales or France). In all the assaults, the ruffians make no apologies, and, in fact, later, in sequence are seen walking around wearing various hats of other martial nations, showing the same conquering, harsh martial spirit has been alive in others.
All of this is brought to a halt when their schemes get them caught. The leader of the martial spirit is brainwashed to hate violence (English pols who apologize for creating an Empire and conquering and/or are now too milquetoast to fight, like Chamberlain), while his former fellow cohorts abuse him (internal civil strife), as does his former victims (victim culture).
But there is an upside(?). By bringing him so low, the conditioning is broken, and his old violent martial spirit returns.
Anyway, that was just my symbolic reading, ignoring the other readings I've had of the film.@John JohnsonJoe Paluka , says: April 2, 2021 at 9:20 am GMT 5.3 days ago
Pornography that pretends to criticize pornography had a particularly odious run with Netflix pedo-perverse "Cuties" last year.
Degeneracy among the chattering classes has been with us since the beginning of man. I can't speak for Burgess but I've seen enough of Kubrick's work to find him a somewhat insightful and self-aware pervert and weirdo at best.Malla , says: April 2, 2021 at 9:25 am GMT 5.3 days ago
I've always known this movie was trash and avoided it like the plague. What demented person's have been "urging" the author to review it? Do they need somebody else's approval before they watch it? I never understood these type of people who make degenerate movies like this and those by Quentin Terantino into movie classics. Who wants to watch more degeneracy when we already live in a degenerate society? Just turn on the news and get your thrills.Jefferson Temple , says: April 2, 2021 at 1:09 pm GMT 5.1 days ago
Yggdrasil has written an amazing review on this movie: https://web.archive.org/web/20051220045554/http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/orange.htm
A must read. Tip: Download his entire website (whitenationalism.com ), ((they)) are trying to scrub it off the web it seems. BTW below : Inner party/ IP> Chosenites
"The very aversion therapy that the inner party psychiatrist was administering to Alex late in the movie to curb his criminality, Kubrick was administering to his fellow tribesmen right from the opening scene, to curb their liberal universalist illusions.
The setting is in a future time in which the people speak a language which is a mixture of English and Russian. The protagonist, Alex, is a high school dropout born and raised in a public housing project. Alex is what you would call a tabula rasa a blank slate from a cultural standpoint. His parents have no culture at all, they are remarkably obedient and dull witted. Both parents work and both spend all their free time in front of the telly, being passively entertained.
Alex's parents are exactly what the inner party wishes us all to become.
They work, they consume, and they are passive and obedient, with no thoughts of their own.
They are new socialist man interchangeable parts with no sense of their own group identity or uniqueness no traditions, no culture, and no reactionary and troublesome notions to pass on to their children.
But their only son is another story altogether. He very much prefers active entertainment."
"Differences in aesthetic preference and perception provoke and sharpen conflict rather than reduce it. Indeed, this idea that high art is a universal which can lead humans into a uniform brotherhood of man is absurd. Thus, Kubrick's message that high art is a differentiating mechanism fraught with potential for conflict and competition is broadly consistent with Professor Geoffrey Miller's thesis in The Mating Mind, that our brains evolved primarily as ornaments of fitness in the highly competitive sexual selection process.
Siamese twin to the Freudian attack is the Freudian promise, namely that peace and universal harmony can be attained through sexual liberation and "free love." if only sex can be stripped of the competitive and aggressive baggage imposed by repressive society.
Alex's denoument occurs at another home invasion fraught with symbolic content. The home is occupied by a conspicuously IP looking woman (the cat lady) with her house decorated with a conspicuously IP collection of erotic art objects and paintings. When Alex enters, she becomes remarkably aggressive and assaultive, swinging a bust of Beethoven (his [European] art) as a weapon against him, as he grabs one of her large phallic sculptures (her [Jewish] art) and deploys it to defend himself.
As this sexual/artistic combat is danced out to the tune of Rossini's Thieving Magpie, Kubrick explodes the Freudian myth of peace and harmony through free sex so popular among his own tribesmen, ."Z-man , says: April 2, 2021 at 1:11 pm GMT 5.1 days ago
This is a pretty good assessment of Clockwork Orange. I think the movie could be used as a gauge of one's own growth. The first time I saw it I was in my late teens. It wasn't that impressive but I sat through it and took in its lessons. I have watched it maybe 3 times since then. The last time I watched it, somewhere in my mid-thirties, I didn't even want to finish it. I found it that distasteful. In a similar way as a movie called Vulgar that was released about 20 years ago.
Last year's Joker movie was much less stomach turning than either of those movies.John Johnson , says: April 2, 2021 at 4:27 pm GMT 5.0 days ago
Yeah ditto to what you said Trevor Lynch.
I was around 15 when this movie came out and I never had a desire to see it because of its violence and homo/glitter rock make up of the protagonist/antagonist played by Malcolm McDowell.
I've seen some of it over the last 50 years and still agree with the article even though I find some of the scenes now humorously entertaining.
Now lets talk about Kubrick. He has made a number of great movies, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, etc. but where would he be if not for Jewlywood? Yeah sure he started small but with hymie $ backing $. I put it to you that if he weren't a JOO (but also being a Jew, lol) he would have been jerking off to boy porn or otherwise in the Bronx until his death. (Wry grin)gar manar nar , says: April 2, 2021 at 7:22 pm GMT 4.8 days ago
To sum up, a society that rejects morality and meaning in favor of utilitarianism (symbolized by the drab, horrible architecture), hedonism (the ready availability of drugs and the tasteless, obscene decoration), and situational expediency, builds itself a nightmare world, in which there is no beauty, subtlety, meaning, or decency. Its denizens are hopeless slaves to base instincts and the fads of the moment.
Does any of that seem to resonate with our current situation?
It doesn't matter if backdrop resonates with our current situation or appears prophetic.
The problem is that Kubrick pandering to the same moral degeneracy that he is also trying to criticize.
Alex is a psychopath that is unleashed by the elimination of traditional morality. This new society that embraces tolerance to the point of mindlessness becomes his playground.
Kubrick takes advantage of that same extreme tolerance by selling rape and violence. The first third of the movie depicts Alex as the protagonist even though he rapes and kills for his own pleasure. It's acknowledged that he has access to a normal life and rejects it on the basis of it being too conforming. How many movies lure the audience into celebrating a rapist as an individualist?
Later after the treatment fails we are supposed to identify with him as a victim of society. What about the people that he raped and murdered? Are they not victims? We are supposed to forget about that and view him as morally superior to the system that tried reprogramming him. Well this is exact same moral relativism that created the dystopia in the first place.
The truth is that Kubrick likes the world of Alex and would prefer living there over some stodgy traditional society. Sure you might get raped or murdered by an individualist but you were probably some faceless chattering class White that lacked taste and had it coming anyways.Turk 152 , says: April 2, 2021 at 9:33 pm GMT 4.8 days ago
Kubrick liked to shock people he studied it, not just the photographic techniques, but also the psychology of inducing maximum fear and terror in his audience. He hoped this would make his films more memorable, and it obviously did, while arguably better films, such as
are almost completely forgotten now. Watched about 1/2 hour of Orange on video before turning it off. Can't imagine why anyone would want to subject themselves to that on the big screen. 2001 is a masterpiece.@Priss FactorPriss Factor , says: Website April 4, 2021 at 5:20 pm GMT 2.9 days ago
I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without Harvard or Yale on your resume. In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College.Trevor Lynch , says: April 5, 2021 at 7:32 pm GMT 1.8 days ago
One of the best sociopath roles. Maybe the most disturbing. Willams' best role.[Hide MORE]
True work of art. Tough nut to crack. Clearly influenced by ACO@Steve Sailer the people most likely to think that:Trevor Lynch , says: April 6, 2021 at 8:21 am GMT 1.3 days ago
1. One can turn a sociopath into a normal person by making him sick while showing him movies of sex and violence. In other words, there's no difference between empathy and/or good character and a sour stomach.
2. Freedom of choice is a necessary condition for morality and humanity (the old libertarian apology for moral laxness), which means that sociopaths are better moral agents and more human than gentlemen, who through habit and moral sentiment are less "free" to behave dishonorably.
3. A movie that decorates rape, wanton cruelty, cartoonish acting, and crude parody with little sprigs of middle-brow moralizing is redeemed by it.Trevor Lynch , says: April 6, 2021 at 8:37 am GMT 1.3 days ago@dfordoom sociopathic tendencies.
The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement.
Sociopaths need not flourish in every system. It really depends on the criteria for selection. One of the problems with empowering the masses is that it gives a role to people with average and below-average levels of discernment in choosing who rises to the top, and that virtually guarantees that sociopathic con artists will rise into positions of prominence.
The White Nationalist movement needs to weed out sociopathic types. Let the system have them.@Priss Factor to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he's a lousy leader, and his gang are lousy followers, because sociopaths lack fellow feeling, which makes it impossible for them to feel loyalty and solidarity and difficult for them to understand one another.Priss Factor , says: Website April 6, 2021 at 9:25 am GMT 1.3 days ago
Hitler, by contrast, built a movement that grew into millions and inspired fanatical loyalty, in large part because he was highly empathetic: he cared about people, understood people, and made people feel visible and understood by him. I know words like "sociopath" or "madman" are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things in the real world, and they don't fit Hitler.beavertales , says: April 6, 2021 at 1:45 pm GMT 1.1 days ago
The problem for White Nationalism and the dissident right is these movements attract very low-quality sociopaths. If you look at very successful political movements (such as neoconservatism) you'll find that they attract sociopaths of much higher quality.
No, extreme Jews are supported by rich Jews, whereas 'extreme' whites are rejected by successful whites.
Most Neocons are silly people. But they got backing.
Even is 'extreme' whites were all high-quality, they would be rejected by moneyed whites because Jews control the gods.@Oscar Peterson imagine a future with a wife and son. It's an abrupt change in 10 pages and Alex retains the self-pity that makes you wonder whether that could really happen."Turk 152 , says: April 6, 2021 at 3:40 pm GMT 1.0 days ago
This is the version I read, and it is vital to the story.
ACO was published in 1962, and was astonishingly prescient. The movie inspired 1970's punk attitudes and the enormous cultural impact which reverberates to this day. The Sex Pistols and 'Anarchy in the UK' were Alex' character for those who couldn't get enough of him.
Like the protagonist, we can all look at our younger selves and see a different person. Johnny Rotten, like a real life Alex, eventually got old, and now he waxes nostalgic for old England.@Trevor LynchDr. Robert Morgan , says: April 6, 2021 at 4:16 pm GMT 23.5 hours ago
As long as it your socio-path, doing your dirty work, nobody cares about a sociopath. At one time 90% of the US supported the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, but now you cant find anyone who will state they did and they were wrong. Kubrick is brilliant because he exposed our collective schizophrenia by letting us know how much we enjoy it.Trevor Lynch , says: April 6, 2021 at 7:57 pm GMT 19.8 hours ago
Trevor Lynch: "Alex is part of a group of four, and when he starts acting the leader of the other three, he's brutal and high-handed, which leads immediately to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he's a lousy leader "
Hitler could be treacherous and brutal too. Alex miscalculated, whereas Hitler, in the night of the long knives, didn't miscalculate. The moral would seem to be that when you betray somebody, don't leave them alive so they can take revenge. Thus, you could say that Alex's mistake was that he wasn't sociopathic enough . But then, not everyone can be a Hitler.
Trevor Lynch: "I know words like "sociopath" or "madman" are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things in the real world, and they don't fit Hitler. "
Their meaning is in their social significance. They mean "I don't like you", and mark someone as outgroup. But there is no objective definition of mental health, only various types of animal behavior. Either the behavior helps the animal survive, or it doesn't. Raised in brutality, one becomes brutal. Raised in a technological society, we get the kind of "normal" white people who celebrate their own racial destruction. In such an environment, "normality" is overrated. By feeding into this mentality, your review is counterproductive.
Trevor Lynch: "The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement. "
Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.@Dr. Robert Morgan
Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.
There are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs to protect the flock.
In a well-run society, the sheepdogs cull the wolves. Healthy people don't need sociopaths. They need us.
The story of the Rohm purge is not Hitler calculatingly betraying Rohm, but Rohm betraying Hitler, who hesitated to believe the worst of Rohm until it was almost too late.
Sex, drugs, and catfights!, July 16, 2005
I remember hearing about this movie when it first came out and reading an interview with the creator Nikki Reed. I thought it sounded stupid and melodramatic, so I avoided it. 'Sex, drugs, and catfights!' the headline had read. So a couple years later I decided what the heck, I'll rent it away. I knew it was going to be depressing and dramatic and I was right. It was. It was pretty realistic, yes this stuff does happen to *gasp* even thirteen year-olds, I've seen it with my own two eyes.
But the thing is, the thirteen year-olds who are doing this don't even represent half the population of young teens. Most young teens don't act like this, it's only a few groups.
So I just wanted to point that out to some people, and settle a compromise between the people who say 'it never happens' and the people who say 'this is completely normal for any young teen'. Anyway on to the movie.
The shooting is pretty much low-budget, but that's what you'd expect from an indie film. Not a problem, if you're a fan of indie movies you should be used to this. My only problem with the story was in the beginning, where she becomes friends with Evie. One day Evie and her friend insult her, and the next day all Tracy has to do is wear cool clothes and suddenly Evie lets her hang out with her? It didn't seem very realistic, like the beginning of Evie and Tracy's relationship didn't seem developed enough in the beginning. And another thing I thought was weird with the movie: the two girls were always hanging out with 'bad' guys and all these 'bad' guys just happened to be black. A little weird, isn't that kind of a negative sterotype? It was like they were at a 'ghetto' school yet there wasn't even any black females or white guys, it was all just black guys and white girls. I don't know that part didn't seem realistic, like the director wanted some ethnic diversity but she didn't show it in a very realistic manner.
Other than that, the movie wasn't too bad. If you enjoy the bad girl spiralling out-of-control movies like 'Girl, Interrupted' then this movie is for you.
Kcorn on January 29, 2004Terrifyingly real...
The litmus test for the realism in this one - watched it with a group of 12-18 year old girls and they all said it reflected the reality of being teenagers, with all the actual pressures and stresses of their high school and social lives. This is, quite simply, one of the most honest (and painful) movies about adolescence that I've ever seen..and it was written by a teenager who also stars in the movie...amazing!
At the start of the movie, Tracy (played by Evan Rachel Wood) is a good student with a not-so-great family life. Her mother is struggling to put food on the table and under a lot of pressure to hold family and home together.
So it makes sense that Tracy would be drawn to "the coolest girl in school", Evie, a wild rebel with a penchant for danger. Evie gladly takes Tracy under her wings, often pushing her into Tracy into situations she isn't prepared for (parents should be aware that some of the scenes are graphic, including sexuality and nudity).
It is impressive that this film is so utterly believable and the sensational and often shocking scenes make sense in the context of Tracy and Evie's lives. Adding to the strength of this film is Holly Hunter's strong performance as a mother who is desperate to save her daughter but isn't quite sharp enough to find the right path.
One of the best films of the year, bar none!
jennifer lang on January 9, 2004Thirteen as told by a thirteen year old
While reading other customer reviews, I was stunned by the tendency of cynical college types to dismiss this movie as "eager to be hip" and "exploitive garbage". If one has not been through an experience, rejecting it when it is displayed must be easy. However, for those of us like myself, who are thirteen years old, this movie was shockingly real. And who better to be the judge of that than a thirteen year old, rather than a pretentious college student, now too cool to believe in teen "angst" as they call it.
Tracy's (the remarkable Evan Rachel Wood) descent into the world of drugs, casual sex, and smiling lies is a descent I have seen far too often in real life. Some reviewers were suspicious of the quickness of her progression into this world. However, one must remember that these are middle schoolers, not twenty-somethings, and the overwhelming insecurity of most 13 year olds allows them to change their images daily.
Also, Tracy is not necessarily a "good girl" when the movie begins. She already smokes, and seems to feel stuck in her life both at school and at home. This is evident in scenes she shares with her friends, and a particular scene with her mother (Holly Hunter in an incredible performance), where despite her best efforts, Tracy cannot get the attention she needs from her mother, who is wrapped up in most aspects of her own life, especially romantically.
Thirteen is not for those who wish to shut their eyes to what is truly happening to our culture and society. However, I would recommend that every parent see Thirteen with their child to know the reality of the environment their child is growing up around. If you are a parent, do not believe for a moment that the experiences of Tracy are experiences that take place everywhere else. Whether you know it or not, this movie does indeed hit close to home.
A few more notes before I end this review. Evan Rachel Wood deserves an Oscar for her harrowing performance as Tracy, Holly Hunter is better than I have ever seen her, and Nikki Reed is inspiringly truthful in both her writing and her performance as a character she had not intended to play. Catherine Hardwicke, as the director, uses her own emotions and vibrant colors to convey the truths hidden behind the masks each character wears. The obsessive need of the two girls for each other, as a replacement for lack of love in other aspects of their lives, is perhaps the most honest part of this movie.
Whether you enjoy it or not, Thirteen is a movie that must be seen. More than a social commentary, Thirteen is almost a mirror of reality.
Freedomisanillusion from Tasmania, Australia, 8 May 2004
Proof that the oscars are rigged...
How did Holly Hunter not win that Oscar? Why weren't Evan Rachel Wood and Nikki Reed at least nominated, let alone winners?
I have seen many films in my time, and none have held such great performances as this, and few have spoken to the audience in such a powerful way.
Holly Hunter, who is always superb, outdid herself in the role of Mel, the caring mother who doesn't know when to put a tighter grip on her daughter, Tracy. Her performance is so touching, and so painful that you want to get inside her and show her what she needs to do.
Evan Rachel Wood is outstanding as Tracy, the young girl who so desperately wants to fit in, and will go to any lengths to get that. Wood is always good, but she too has outdone herself, and perfectly nailed the role of Tracy. Not once does she come across as a pretentious actress trying to act like a teen.
Nikki Reed, who was introduced by this film, delivers a performance that is worth the ticket fare alone. Evie is so manipulative, so seductive, and so real that you can't possibly blame Tracy for wanting to be like her.
Whoever it is who decides who gets the Oscars - wake up and realise that you need to award these to the performances, not the actors who wear the nicer dresses!
Thirteen is one of the more powerful pieces of cinema around. The camera probes right into the livers of our protagonists, denying anyone the joy if seeing this grim masterpiece from a safe distance. The soundtrack rocks along to the emotions of the characters. The performances create not only a good film, but a little disturbing slice of life.
Having seen Thirteen, I now understand why people label some films as important. this is certainly one of them.
Amazon.comTAXES AND TANGERINES
By The Movie Guy on August 16, 2015Format: Amazon Video
Trevor (Jon Briddell) takes the love torn Harrison (Jonathan Bennett) under his wing and teaches him about women. Harrison in return recruits more students as Trevor has created a cult where he teaches men how to control beautiful women by basically being an a-hole. Much of this low budget film is guys talking about what women want, lumping them all together as if they are the same and can all be treated the same. There are some flashbacks.
I found the discussions boring. Women might like watching this, thinking it is akin to a Cosmo article on what men are like, but I found it insulting as it too lumps men all together as simply animals that want to completely control women and use them as sex objects. BTW that naked girl on the cover is not in the film.
Guide: F-bomb, sex. No nudity. Some violence.The Battle of the Sexes ... With A Touch of Revenge
By Edward L Zimmerman TOP 1000 REVIEWER on April 6, 2015Format: DVD
The battle of the sexes has quite probably been around as long as well as long as we've had sexes. I've heard it said that the male mind will never effectively grasp what goes on inside the female of the species, and no doubt it's been challenged vice versa. Rather than seeking to understand it, what happens when we just want to make the best use of what's in there instead? That's part and parcel of what's lurking near the core of MISOGYNIST, a film that may challenge some viewers to sit until the finish and if they do they just might be rewarded with something to talk about afterwards along with some pretty spiffy independent performances.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you're the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I'd encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you're accepting of a few modest hints at 'things to come,' then read on )
From the product packaging: "Trevor is an extreme misogynist who campaigns underground seminars, teaching his ideology of women. Only through referrals and word of mouth, he provides bizarre, offensive, and outlandish strategies to young men, with the promise that they can control any woma. His best student is Harrison, a young man Trevor took under his wing when he was most vulnerable. Viewing Trevor as a father figure, Harrison will do what Trevor instructs him to do. Soon Harrison starts to realize that he is just a pawn in Trevor's plot "
I'm stopping there because methinks the last bit on the box spoils too much of the finish, though I've no doubt others may see this conclusion coming, especially if they're watching closely. I did, but I have to say that that didn't happen by enjoyment of MISOGYNIST, a slightly uneven film that vacillates between an effective performance piece for gifted actors (all around) and perhaps the sickest revenge flick one might stumble upon.
At the center of the conversation that dominates the first half of the picture are Trevor (Jon Briddell) and Harrison (Jonathan Bennett), two men who upon first meeting would appear to be polar opposites. But when the real action of the film begins (three years later), we find out that they've become curious soulmates two peas in the same pod and they're destined to make Trevor's philosophy for mastering the attentions of any women into a successful underground business. (How do they make money on this is never clear, but it ultimately isn't all that important to the story being told.)
And just to clarify for those still reading: there is at least one woman around throughout the lion's share of philosophizing (Cheryl, played by the comely Alia Raelynn). As a character, the dynamic is such that she's meant to reinforce Trevor's world view, and she does this in both the more public and private moments of this story.
Now, all that said, I can certainly understand how some might object to the subject matter explored in a film titled MISOGYNIST. Let's agree that this isn't the kind of feature that's going to be for everyone; Trevor's particular take is rude, offensive, and decidedly misogynistic (hence the effective name) but there's more to the story here than just offending others. And for the record yes, we've all known men who've been able to treat one woman after another the way he does while receivable favorable results. Such is the battle of the sexes I cited at the opening: it's a never-ending battle, and no doubt it'll continue to defy understanding until our sun grows cold.
However, in MISOGYNIST's second half, the story takes a turn, chancing a somewhat predictable reveal that tries to modestly redefine who Trevor is and why he behaves the way he does. As much as I appreciated the twist, it's also easily to dismiss it as the film's most cinematic conceit the kind of thing that always happens in movies.
Still, kudos to writer/director Michael Matteo Rossi for making what could go down as the worst date movie ever but doing so in a way that makes it worth talking about. That's no easy feat.
MISOGYNIST (2013) is produced by Four Legged Pictures, Italian Cowboy Productions, and Ryan Ricketts Productions. DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable Midnight Releasing. As for the technical specifications, this is one smartly shot indie feature, so audiences can expect some high quality sights and sounds to accompany it. Lastly, if you're looking for special features, then you do have some short behind-the-scenes bits along with an audio commentary to look forward to.
RECOMMENDED. At times, MISOGYNIST felt more than a bit incomplete to me: what started out as a pretty dynamic performance piece morphed into a macabre revenge flick in the latter half, and I'm not entirely sure both halves gelled the way they should've. Still, when it worked it worked, and the film boasted smart scenes, interesting dynamics, and a kind of water cooler appeal rarely seen in most indie fare these days. Well worth the 76 minutes, my friends, though not without some discomfort, I'm sure.
In the interests of fairness, I'm pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Midnight Releasing provided me with a complimentary DVD copy of MISOGYNIST by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
A look at recent research into the brains and behavior of psychopaths and the prospects for treatment or containment of this antisocial group. Psychopaths who have been convicted of appalling crimes explain with disturbing clarity what motivated them. 48 minutes.
Nonfiction Only, January 13, 2016
Interesting and informative, however...
The danger of this film is that people watching who have not studied psychopathology will look at the descriptive words drifting across the screen and remember that glibness, manipulative, remorseless, conning, lying, and charismatic are traits of a psychopath and may look at loved ones, friends, coworkers and others in a different, and perhaps wrong, light. Hare's psychopathology scale is the industry standard but it consists of 40 items that must be a cohesive group of traits within an individual. Not all 40 of the marker traits were shown. The other danger is that many of the traits shown and discussed, such as an abnormal amygdala, flat affect, lack of emotion, and disconnected are also traits of those with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other disorders.I gave it a 4 star rating because it was informative regarding research and the results of experimental treatments.
Victoria J. Dennison, January 11, 2016
This is a very good documentary which attempts to explore the mindset of a psychopath. I was surprised at the amount of psychopath's in the U.S. and England. I didn't think the dysfunction of Psychopathy affected so much of the population. I too believe a person can be born as a psychopath and that it is basically a wiring problem with the brain. Bio-psychology with an emphasis on Neuro-Science does hold the key to remedy many brain dysfunctions such as alcoholism and other mental health issues including psychopathy.
As a person who has a lot of empathy, I can understand the therapists dilemma in trying to work with psychopaths within the prison system and the inevitable failure of behavioral modification. I always view another person as having the same feelings and needs as I do.
Unfortunately, as far as a psychopath is concerned I am far better off seeing them as an alien life form who does not possess the same emotions that puts the word human in term human being.
It was interesting that one psychopath who was being interviewed (in prison) mentions that a person learns from birth and develops a conscience. At which point he mentions "a baby learns not to touch a stove when it is hot". In my opinion touching a hot stove and learning not to burn yourself does not involve the conscience at all. Could it be since he never experienced the pangs of "conscience" and that basically; he doesn't know what it is?
Caton March 15, 2016
Insightful, educational and scary...
The statistics noted in this documentary, if accurate, are really frightening. Apparently, unlike zombies, psychopaths are quite common and do walk among us. The information is put forth in an entertaining yet sober fashion, with interviews with actual psychopaths and numerous members of the forensic psychological expert community. I wish it was a lengthier documentary or had additional parts to it because it was so interesting that I wanted to learn more about the topic.
George Edmondson, March 3, 2016
Interesting study of this disease.
Interesting study of this disease. It also sheds a bright light on why politics are (as opposed to appear to be) crazy.
Karen Roberton November 19, 2015
PSYCHOPATHS RUN THE WORLD.
Great film, when we discover the precise way to identify and diagnose true psychopaths,...society will be stunned to know just how many police, politicians, inter-governmental parasites, and assorted corporate CEO scum that there are sabotaging societies in every country; but whom will have the courage and fortitude to identify and eject these maladjusted maggots to the heavily fortified mental institutions where they belong.
Amazon.comFanli Yang, on December 15, 2015>A film in layers that surprises you at every step of stripping lies to finally reveal the heartbreaking, thought-provoking truth
What is the meaning of "temptation" in "Lead Us Not into Temptation"?
At first glance, and while watching the first part of the film, from the husband (Tristan)'s perspective, it appears really obvious: it is what you think it is, temptation of "the flesh". A young girl tempts a married man of integrity into betraying the spouse he truly loves, by posing as a helpless damsel in distress. By strategically and subtly revealing the charms of her lively character, devotion to domestic life, and beautiful young body, the girl leads the son of a pastor step by step into sin and remorse, and his family into disaster... The second part, from the girl (Anna)'s perspective seems to confirm this, and reveals her ulterior motive to be monetary gain, and every step was deliberately carried out. She seems nothing but a shameless swindler who uses the basest means to plot against a generous man and his strong yet vulnerable wife...
This is all very cliche; but the film does not stop at here. Watch on, to see the story from the wife (Rachel)'s perspective. All your understanding will be overthrown within minutes, and nothing, absolutely nothing, is really as it seems. In store for you are incredibly strong emotional power and a heartbreaking tragedy in which it seems impossible to find the one to blame. Everyone would be the culprit, and everyone the victim...
Recommended if you love films that are more than skin-deep. You also need to watch it to the end, in one sitting if possible, to really watch it.
Gary Oldman gives a blistering performance as Bex Bissell, a middle-class family man who also leads a violent gang of soccer hooligans. Philip Davis co-stars in this scorching drama that critics have called a modern-day A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
badbunnies on February 15, 2014
I am a HUGE Gary Oldman fan. I have seen him play murderers and terrorists but this was his most disturbing role ever. His character was so normal/abnormal. The kind of guy you wouldn't blink at on the street yet he's so angry when it comes to soccer.
How many of you has seen the movie "The Last Seduction"? Bridget Gregory/Wendy Kroy, who is played by Linda Fiorenting has got to be the the top of the list of unremorseful females. I have watched this movie a few times, though the plot seams abit nonrealistic, her character is so using. Another movie that comes to mind is "Body Heat".=== Quote:
Originally Posted by agent_007
- How many of you has seen the movie "The Last Seduction"? Bridget Gregory/Wendy Kroy, who is played by Linda Fiorenting has got to be the the top of the list of unremorseful females. I have watched this movie a few times, though the plot seams a bit nonrealistic, her character is so using. Another movie that comes to mind is "Body Heat".
- Natalie Portman as the 12-year-old would-be killer in The Professional.
- The Brewster sisters...Abby and Martha Brewster from Arsenic and Old Lace are my favorites. I don't think they're as psycho as their nephew Johnathan, but I think gleefully helping lonely old men to their grave might be considered unremorseful...and a wee bit off kilter.
- Also...Audrey Tautou as Angιlique in He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not.
I never would have thought such a sweet face could be so evil.
This category is commonly known as femme fatale.
- Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity (The Last Seduction is based on this film)
- Ann Savage in Detour
- Ava Gardner in The Killers
- Jane Greer in Out of the Past
- Rita Hayworth in The Lady from Shanghai
- Gaby Rodgers in Kiss Me Deadly
- Susan Hayward in I Want to Live!
- Simone Simon in Cat People
- Jennifer Tilly in Bound
- Anjelica Huston and Annette Bening in The Grifters
- Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex
- Janie Marθse in La Chienne
- Louise Brooks in Pandora's Box
- Mieko Harada in Ran
- Isuzu Yamada in Throne of Blood
Jane Greer as Kathy Moffat - Out of the Past
This chick is deadly, and then some. She brings down just about everyone she comes in contact with in this film, playing the victim almost the entire time. At one point, she poses as another character in the film (appropriately named Meta), whom we never see again afterward. It's as if Moffat actually absorbs her.
One of my favorite films of all time.
Charlize Theron in Monster. She totally embodied the essence of Beetlejuice/serial killer.
Rebecca De Mornay was better than The Hand that rocks the Cradle.
I'll second Linda Fiorentino's femme fatale in The Last Seduction. She's such an epic bitch.
Google matched content
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Haters Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site|
Last modified: July, 05, 2021