I saw this as a kid. One of those weird memories where for years I wasn’t sure what the hell I watched. Then I caught it a couple of decades later and it made sense. I don’t think it gets the love it deserves.
As an IT nerd I loved how they made the door out of rack slides. Probably the easiest and cheapest way to make something that seems futuristic, but if you work with servers you see them every day.
The opening scene is also epic, still legendary to this day. I rented the movie on VHS back in the day, looked promising, but I wasn’t that interested to be fair. Then the opening scene happened and I was glued to the screen.
I’ve watched this movie more times than I can say. I’m less into it now (I watched it again 20 days ago and wasn’t as excited with other movies I still watch again).
There was a lot of thought into it making mathematical sense and how to make it feel believable. The plot is perhaps not as deep, but the movie remains enjoyable!
I never thought about it, but I’ve always been hunting for new details and this is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for!
Do you happen to remember if this is before or after Leven decides whether a trap number must be a power of a prime?
Because after she understands this, a number like 125 = 5^3 is a trap number, but a number like 212 = 2^2 x 53 is not a trap number since it has two distinct prime factors
Cheers mate!
Edit: I just found out that Lemmy can exponentiate expressions so 2^2x53 is not what I wanted to write (aka 2^2 x 53)
Peeking at the script, I think this was the scene that annoyed me.
"It seems like if any of these numbers of prime, then the room is trapped. Ok, 645... 645, that's not prime. 372... no. 649... Wait, 11 x 59, it's not prime either. So that room is safe."
The pauses after 645 and 372 are pretty bad. The line should have been something like "645 and 372 are not prime. 649..."
As at the moment she was operating under the theory that only primeness mattered, anything with an even number or a five should have been instantaneous. 3s take a second to check (add the digits and see if that's a multiple of 3). The rest of the primes up to 31 are tougher. (Well, you only have to worry about 961 for 31, as otherwise a lower prime will interfere, but eh.)
Oooh, I never thought about reading the script! When this came out in 1997 internet was a thing, but not the same it is today.
You’re right, she pauses after numbers which are obviously not prime (when primes were the known working theory)
We could argue that it’s a very stressful situation and she pauses to think because it’s not a relaxed moment and she doesn’t want to get it wrong or another possibility is let the audience think for themselves and realize they couldn’t have been prime, but then it would have been better if she had said loudly what the numbers were and the easy rule to exclude them
I just watched it for the second time (the first being about twenty years ago or more), and I made the realization they only needed one cube to film it up until the ending. Glad to learn it was a cube and a half.
Part two of the upload takes the interesting approach of occasionally displaying subtitles in parentheses, not as translation of dialogue but as commentary about certain historical facts and allegations.
For example, these commentaries shift the brunt of blame for The Terror from Robespierre as lone tyrant, to an out-of-control political inquisition and purge that was abused up and down the country by so many petty brutal assholes drunk on power, with personal axes to grind and things to hide.
Which is not to say that Robespierre wasn’t guilty of mass murder disguised as “law and justice”, but in the end he was used as a scapegoat by others who were just as guilty, to hide behind and wash themselves of their own abhorrent crimes.
The facts are always more complicated than those written by the victors, who wrote the narratives published in newspapers at the time, and later making it to the history books, then films and miniseries, like this one.
Yeah, that’s a good point, there are a couple of parenthetical comments, I think they were made by the uploader. As I remember they were only in 2-3 places so they weren’t that distracting, but they helped to remind the viewer that no matter how objective a film may seem, by selecting the scenes that it shows and constructing the narrative that it does, it suggests an interpretation.
I don’t know much about the Terror and Robespierre, but there was a documentary that I found useful in hearing a couple of different arguments, BBC’s “Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution”:
I thought this was the Langoliers at first. (I’m not much of a King expert) Glad it’s not, though we’ve had it here before and it was popular. Thanks for the share, KingJalopy
When Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’avventura arrived in 1960 – amidst a tumultuous reception in Cannes that saw some disturbed audience members wanting to throw something at the screen – cinema was already changing in fundamental ways.
I tried hard to get this in Mexico City in 2001. I was lucky enough to get to a VHS with CC that worked perfectly. Now, everyone can watch this in YouTube, but my VHS is still around even if the DVD version was easier to find in more recent years.
fullmoviesonyoutube
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.