Tumgik
#Peter Atkins
80smovies · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
123 notes · View notes
badmovieihave · 11 months
Photo
Tumblr media
Bad movie I have Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 2008
3 notes · View notes
notmuchtoconceal · 2 months
Text
Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 -- through a series of cast drop-outs and hasty script changes -- reformed itself from an artless cash grab which terminates in a soft Hollywood reset into the story of a young woman confronting the trauma which destroyed her family; a slow-build which erupted in a conflagration that destroyed her home overnight (though by the second, left the house standing so it contents could pour out.)
When you read Peter Atkin's original script, there is a stunning amount of additional detail which paints a fuller picture of the crude cardboard world of the film where trick photography and montage turns a collection of hallways and matte paintings into a sprawling cthonian maze.
Yet by the end, all catharsis is forfeit -- the father is revived, the evil vanquished, the damage undone. When you read the events depicted in the original script as a dream language which constitutes the organic regeneration of a myth, the fact that Frank and Larry are literally conjoined in their burning attic hell -- the topmost story of the home which didn't burn down -- and his confronting and absorbing his brother, the parasitic twin, is what ultimately allows him to get so pissed he punches the Freshly Cenobitten Gaslighting Head of the Asylum Who Traps Autistic Girls in Repetitive Puzzle Cubes After He Vivisects and Gases Their Mothers in the face before the snake-worm buzz-saw phallus which bores into his skull (not from an omniscient Platonic solid in this version, but a fleshy amorphous mass :-- no worship of the tetrahedron) turns him into his kinky brainwashed leather sex puppet and dangles him around his own hospital cracking Freddy Krueger one-liners as he murders his own crippled and infirm.
Figuratively, this is simply an expression of the Ba'al cycle in miniature (the Pagan origin of Christianity which is nature worship; cycles within cycles; seasonal, annual, generational, epochal, which through self-determined individual will can be overcome to build civilizations, histories, myths of higher-order artistry and expression) -- for Larry, as Clive Barker himself points out, is something of a soft-boy dominated by his wife who gets really into boxing because he's so timid.
Watch the original again. His wife who's fucking his brother who literally regenerated from his blood sacrifice (his hand nailed -- a Christic reference, though through the back of the palm -- as he moves the marriage bed, literally complicit in his own cuckoldry) arouses him in his state of television-induced blood lust to distract him from the corpse in the attic by appealing to his desire to protect her. She's stringing him along, he starts to fuck her, and while she's horny, she kinda realizes ... aw, fuck. I actually love my husband. I love my pussy husband who I also have contempt for. Holy Shit. Why am I fucking a blood-eating monster? Is my home life really that insipid? Could I get more attention in better ways, or do I really just live for the havoc I cause?
Larry has issues with his masculinity cause he's the good boy. Frank's corrupted his soul cause he's the bad boy. Julia's fucking them both. The love triangle is a the most stable shape in human psychology, as the triangle is the most stable shape in nature. Truthfully, I think everyone wants a third and you only earn one when you overcome base human passions, otherwise you're consumed and end up in hell.
The sequel, told from his daughter's perspective, dispenses with this baggage entirely. Here, in the original draft, Larry overcomes Frank, who from Kirsty's perspective is a dark perversion of her father; an incestuous reflection who in the final film poses as him simply to lure her into hell and trap her with him in a Holocaust-style cremation-oven fuckbed of which he has several in the vast mausoleal chamber where he keeps his candle-lit fuckshrine to himself, presumably with his own lipstick on his photos as he's tortured by apparitions of bitches who tease him.
In other words, to show Frank and Larry conjoined literalizes what is left figurative in the final film, where he is the apparition of a delusion which functions as a lure; an embodiment of her guilt, shame, complicity, which she must recognize the falsity of to free herself. Only this self-insight gives her the courage she needs to navigate the maze of hell and overcome institutional gaslighting to rescue her mute Autistic other half from the asylum and begin their new life of lesbian sisterhood, which was so obvious it didn't need to be confirmed in the DVD commentary.
In the original draft, therefore -- we see a father figuratively revived, but presented in a literal way. It reframes the events of the previous film as such that Frank was only ever reborn to be overcome and destroyed. It reframes a family tragedy as a hero myth. Due to his daughter's tireless love, Larry becomes complete, and Kirsty seems to disregard Tiffany entirely with a crack about opening a game store.
Perhaps, to depict this myth so literally is repulsive, for it is too revealing.
The rational framework of psychological self-overcoming and self-integration might function as something of a gauze by which we may preserve the self-flattery of our pretensions to civilization.
Perhaps, to depict Kirsty as rescuing her father from hell (plot reasons where additionally cited for the removal of Larry; he spends much of act three unconscious after being rescued, so the feeling was Kirsty's story was over and Tiffany's was superfluous -- forgetting the incidental details of Kirsty needing to literally step-into her stepmother's skin, oh yes... becoming like the woman who fucked both her father and brother to help the new girl) in such a direct way reveals too uncomfortable a subtext.
If Kirsty becomes like Julia and Larry becomes like Frank, then now Father and Daughter are Truly One with Rebel and Whore.
The base contradiction at the heart of the Christian worldview is exposed. Beneath all our rational striving is a dark wonderland of flayed men and dancing incest and techno-bacchanalian revelry and deep stoic meditation in leather while highly aestheticized art objects are probed and fondled in the dark as our mechanical nature is subtly unfurled.
Dick itches just thinkin bout it, bro.
Best then we accept that daddy's dead and he's never coming back. Best we then accept that gay sex is a perfectly healthy expression of self-love which only toxic dumbasses could fuck up. Where now is the contradiction in our worldview? What do you suppose we're running from? A uterus is the source of all life, and in it is constant division. A uterus is a microcosm of the void of space as the dick is a microcosm of a shooting star or the sunbeam you yearn to strut across.
Birth is a form of death, as death is simply a form of metamorphosis.
The older I get, the more it makes sense that Clive Barker resents Hellraiser's success. It's a classic, and it's all most will ever know him for, when he's a contemporary renaissance man who is primarily a novelist, though also a painter -- he's really up there with Stephen King in terms of sheer output, and really... his horror phase was comparatively short, he mostly writing gay bizarre fantasy epics which would probably look great on screen, but I think Mr. Barker stopped making movies after three because he found them exhausting. Socially. Bureaucratically. Financially. Meanwhile, on the page, his imagination remains unrestrained and the only limit is the speed at which his fingers can clack and no man could ever tell him he needs an editor or that his work is indulgent.
Clive Barker's like chocolate mousse.
You crave the indulgence.
When he pares himself down to fit neatly into the Christian worldview, you absolutely feel it and know a tremendous loss, the same as you would see in a tree mutilated limbless by an overzealous surgeon.
1 note · View note
zippocreed501 · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
1 note · View note
dipnotski · 6 months
Text
Peter Atkins – Evreni Kurmak (2023)
Evrenin olağanüstü karmaşıklığı, onun şeklini, ölçeğini ve yoğunluğunu belirleyen birkaç temel yasadan ve bir avuç temel sabitten kaynaklanır. Derinliklerinde yalın, zarif ve güzel olan bir yapıya sahiptir. Bu yasalar ve bu sabitler nereden gelir? Ayrıca bu yasalar neden matematik dilinde ifade edildiğinde böylesine verimlidir? Peter Atkins’in, Evreni yasalarıyla ve sabitleriyle donatmanın en az…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
ndcgalitzine · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
WHITE COLLAR | 2.12 "What Happens in Burma"
132 notes · View notes
aragarna · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
I'm not old enough to play Neal's father. - White Collar rewatch (140/?) 6x02 Return to Sender
156 notes · View notes
pygartheangel · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
13 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
100 notes · View notes
missr3n3 · 1 month
Text
i am so unbelievably emo over jessie's new backstory n how it relates to joshua
so like in this new version. she goes to the atkin house w/ her rookie partner andrew. the parents are just. covering the walls n floor leading to their 3 yr old son's room. and she's basically stuck making the choice between saving andrew, who's cornered by the same thing that killed mr n mrs atkins (it was luce), or saving what she believes is a terrified, orphaned toddler (he wasn't crying. wonder why that could be 🙃) and of course she's gonna save the little boy who still has his whole life ahead of him! she may have to shoulder the guilt of hearing Andrew's final, horrified screams for the rest of her life, but it was all worth it to give that child a future, right?
so now imagine how she felt when she saw that same boy as an adult, missing both legs after being tortured all night by an unseen and possibly unbeatable force, the same one that killed andrew :^)))))
7 notes · View notes
2ndaryprotocol · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
The hellaciously fun action/horror hybrid ‘Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters’ hit theaters this week 10 years ago. 🍬🧙🏼‍♀️☠️
“𝚆𝚑𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚍𝚘, 𝚍𝚘𝚗'𝚝 𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚏*𝚌𝚔𝚒𝚗' 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚢.”
64 notes · View notes
mourningmaybells · 24 days
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
im very glad legion definitely isn't canon because this is all incredibly depressing
5 notes · View notes
camyfilms · 11 months
Photo
Tumblr media
PADDINGTON 2 2017
Attention all units: An unusually attractive nun is causing mayhem in the cathedral dome. Activate emergency protocol. Stop that stunning sister!
11 notes · View notes
letterboxd-loggd · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Britannia Hospital (1982) Lindsay Anderson
July 2nd 2023
8 notes · View notes
dare-g · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Lace Crater (2015)
7 notes · View notes
claudia1829things · 3 months
Text
"DAVID COPPERFIELD" (2000) Review
Tumblr media
"DAVID COPPERFIELD" (2000) Review
For the past eight to nine months, I have been increasingly obsessed with Charles Dickens . . . namely television and movie adaptations of his novels and stories. Many may not find this odd, but I do, considering my previous disregard of his writing. Yes, I have seen various Dickens adaptations over the years. But for nearly a year, I have viewed many Dickens adaptations with a vengeance, including the 2000 made-for-television adaptation of his 1850 novel, "DAVID COPPERFIELD".
This adaptation of "David Copperfield" was a joint American-Irish production that had two Britons - John Davis and Greg Smith; along with an American named Robert A. Halmi serving as the film's producers. However, the director, Peter Medak, shot the movie in Ireland. Starring Hugh Dancy in the title role, "DAVID COPPERFIELD" told the story of an English author living in Switzerland, as he recounts his life up to that point from his childhood to early adulthood.
While living in Switzerland, David Copperfield has a chance encounter with his stepfather, the brutal Edward Murdstone, who seemed to be courting a wealthy young Englishwoman. David uses this encounter to write his autobiography, beginning with his birth some six months after his father's death. David recalls his widowed mother and the family's kind housekeeper Clara Peggotty raising him in an ideal setting. Following his and Peggotty's visit to the latter's family in Yarmouth, they return to discover Mrs. Copperfield's marriage to the harsh Mr. Murdstone. They also meet the latter's equally loathsome sister, Jane Murdstone. After a physical encounter with Mr. Murdstone, the latter enrolls David into a boarding school under a ruthless headmaster named Mr. Creakle. This decision sets David's journey in motion in which he makes new friends, forms new enemies and finds love as he matures into adulthood.
Dickens had regarded his 1850 novel as one of his favorite, regarding it as a strong similarity to his own life. Knowing a bit about the author's life, I found this assessment of his a bit hard to swallow. Perhaps this was wishful thinking on Dickens' part? Who knows. But I must admit that his story seemed first-class and the beginning of a more mature approach to his writing. This 2000 television movie seemed to reflect both qualities of Dickens' novel. Although I believe "DAVID COPPERFIELD" seems like a very faithful adaptation of the novel, I believe it is not as close to the latter as some might have believed it should.
I had a few issues with the movie. One, I believe it had made the mistake of closely following the 1935 movie adaptation, produced by David O. Selznick. I thought it had merely paid lip service to the story arc involving David's schoolfriend James Steerforth and Emily Peggotty and her family. In fact, most of the story involving this arc happened off-screen, much to my disappointment. Also, screenwriter John Goldsmith had reduced law clerk Uriah Heep's complex embezzlement scheme to a simple one involving stolen diamonds. Perhaps that is why this particular plotline seemed as if it had come out of the blue to simply serve as the character's downfall. In fact, the movie's last twenty-to-thirty minutes seemed very rushed to me. I also had one or two issues regarding the casting, but I will later touch upon it.
Despite my issues with parts of the movie's screenplay, I cannot deny that I had enjoyed "DAVID COPPERFIELD". I realized this is not the first or last adaptation of Dickens' novel, but it proved to be the first adaptation I have viewed. Like I said . . . I enjoyed it. Between Goldsmith's screenplay and Peter Medak's direction, I believe the movie took care to set up David's story as a flashback, using his encounter with his old foe as a means to kick start the narrative. "DAVID COPPERFIELD" proved to be a solid, yet entertaining story about the protagonist's coming-of-age, through his experiences - good, bad and tragic, and the people he met. I honestly thought I would be bored with this movie at least thirty minutes into the story. But I found myself both intrigued and entertained.
Also, it seemed a miracle that the David Copperfield character had not been overshadowed by the more colorful ones that appeared in this story. One has to credit Hugh Darcy for his skillful, yet emotional portrayal of the movie's protagonist. The actor had received a few negative reviews from critics who thought he had given a weak performance. I . . . have no idea on how to respond to that. I was more than satisfied with his performance.
"DAVID COPPERFIELD" also featured some very competent performances from the rest of the cast. Max Dolbey proved to be effective as the young David. Both Anthony Andrews and Eileen Atkins provided plenty of subtle menace as the cruel Murdstone siblings. Both Emily Hamilton and Julie Cox gave charming performances as David's two potential love interests - Agnes Wickfield and Dora Spinlow. Judy Cornwell and Nigel Davenport gave skillful performances as the Copperfields' housekeeper Clara Peggotty and her solid and dependable brother, Dan Peggotty. Dudley Sutton proved to be both charming and eccentric as Aunt Betsy Trotwood's close friend and tenant. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Lesley Manville, Oliver Ford Davies, Edward Hardwicke, Freddie Jones and Simon Delaney.
The two Americans in the cast for "DAVID COPPERFIELD" - Sally Field and Michael Richards - had received a good deal of criticism for their performances. Frankly, I can honestly say that such criticism were unwarranted. At least in my eyes. Granted, it seemed odd hearing that comical voice emitting from Field's mouth, when she first appeared as Aunt Betsey Trotwood. But in the end, I rather enjoyed her performance. I also enjoyed Michael Richards' performance as the genial, yet unreliable law clerk Wilkins Micawber. But I must admit there were a few times when the actor had allowed his Cosmo Kramer character from the television series, "SEINFELD" creep into his performance every now and then. Paul Bettany made a first-rate James Steerforth. It seemed a pity that the movie had given him very little screen time. I also feel the same about Sarah Farooqui and Anna Maguire, who had portrayed both the adult and young Emily Piggotty. We finally come to Frank McCusker's performance as the villain in the story's second half - Uriah Heep. I thought McCusker gave a skillful portrayal of the character. But at the same time, I found his performance rather exaggerated at times . . . bordering on cartoonish.
"DAVID COPPERFIELD" featured some lovely cinematography, thanks to Elemér Ragályi's colorful photography of the Irish locations. Michael Pickwoad's photography and Josie MacAvin's set decorations did a great job in re-creating early Victorian Britain. And I must admit that I really enjoyed Joan Bergin's costume designs. Most of the narrative for "DAVID COPPERFIELD" is supposed to be set in the 1840s, but the images below seemed to hint at a late 1850s or early 1860s setting for this particular film:
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
Overall, "DAVID COPPERFIELD" proved to be an entertaining adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1850 novel. Granted, I had some issues with the movie's decision to push most of the James Steerforth and Emily Peggotty arc off-screen and the simplification of Uriah Heep's scheme. Otherwise, I really enjoyed the movie, thanks to Peter Medak's direction, John Goldsmith's screenplay and a very skillful cast led by Hugh Dancy in the title role.
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes