Escape to the Movies: Splice

[Shankity Stick]

I didn't get the whole clive & elza thing. Would anyone mind explaining it to me?

 

[Jai Deliete]

I didn't get the whole clive & elza thing. Would anyone mind explaining it to me?

In the movie "The Bride of Frankenstein", Dr. Frankenstein is played by Colin Clive and the titular bride is played by Elsa Lanchester. "Splice" contains many general ideas that are, from a certain point of view, very similar to those in "The Bride of Frankenstein". Is that what you're talking about?

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Glad you liked it, Bob. I've been waiting for this for a while now.

One thing that pissed me off though is seeing all the bullshit people have been writing/saying like "This will either be the biggest guilty pleasure of the year or be the biggest piece of shit of the the year"

How exactly? This movie looks fantastic from the trailer.

Sure, it kinda looked a bit like the movie Species, but that movie was fucking horrible! You can't really say a good movie looks like shit just because it kinda is reminiscent of a bad 90s movie.

The movie looks fantastic from the trailer... there's your problem there. So many movies are completely different from the trailers. The trailer for Splice made it look like a horror movie, it honestly did, while the real thing wasn't scary at all. Not because I didn't find it scary, but because it wasn't even trying to be. Honestly, Splice was a creative and intelligent idea let down by the filmmakers going for the shock value. It was entertaining and you'll never see anything like it again, but in all honesty it wasn't that great. Definitely not the best movie of the year, despite what MovieBob says. Kick Ass was better, The Book of Eli was better, even Repo Men was better. If anything, see it for the spectacle and the creativity and if you're not easily offended. It was an example of a movie that could have been great, but didn't really go anywhere with the great ideas that it had.

 

[firemark]

I just saw the movie and I have to say good review Bob. If I say what's really on my mind I'll ruin the plot for everyone, so I won't. Good luck future viewers!

 

[AllLagNoFrag]

This movie has not been advertised around where I live and barely any of my friends even heard of it. Then again, I think where I come from (Singapore) has very odd release dates for some movies. (Eg: The Crazies is just on the COMING SOON status besides the fact that I have seen it on DVD already...)

Anyway, this review has got me on the look out for this movie, looks good!

 

[The3rdEye]

...why would "We're tampering in God's Domain" be a bad theme?".
Well..... for one thing its been done to death.
Every movie about a scientist who touches on one of the so called 'taboo's' ends up being a ridiculously pseudo moralistic piece of trash, aimed at getting a cheap reaction.

Remember things such as blood transfusion, stem cell research, abortions heck even basic understanding of human anatomy was considered to be (and still is in some cases) a taboo subject, or not for us to tamper with.
If it wasn't for scientists willing to push the boundaries of social and moral acceptance then we would still be living in the dark ages praying to some sky father to heal the sick and solve all our woes. (well some people still do that) but for the rest of us, the people who are willing to step on gods toes have made life a hell of a lot more liveable.

While I do agree with you on the "done to death" portion, you are confusing religion with rationality, or maybe you're just making the purely religious association for the sake of a convenient dismissal. Saying "god's domain" outside of a purely religious context can also just refer to the fact that we typically can't foresee all possible outcomes. (Which if you want to be particularly tactless about it could also be restated as "The only way to foresee all possible outcomes would be as an omniscient being and since such an being does not exist, it's 'god's domain')

If we don't know spit about something, then make a single breakthrough and push on ahead without taking the time to consider alternatives, overlooking the "How it can work" with "How it will work now", acting purely on the desire to achieve what has not been achieved before, those unknown consequences could very well bite us in the asterisk. Using your examples, early blood transfusions would have carried the risks of acting as a vector for known or unknown diseases, among other complications, proving fatal. Stem cells are more complicated, since that is still something that is just dawning on the medical community. Less than a decade has made the difference between cells from a fetus and sperm or umbilical cord blood for example. I would be of the opinion that an abortion is more of a procedural development than a technological development however, unless you are referring to it from a purely religious standpoint.

Another good example:

However many hundreds of thousand of years ago, this individual who's name is lost to history said "No, Fluffy. Instead of mating with whatever sheep you wish like every other sheep in sheep history; you're going to mate with Puffy here, because two extra-wooly sheep parents probably means more extra-wooly sheep babies." This would've been a moment on-par with the decision to take command of FIRE. In that moment, we (humans) ripped the lightning from Zeus' hand and became manipulators of life itself.

Sadly, Fluffy and Puffy also harbored double-recessive genetic traits which increased their chances of uterine deformations, or decreased immune responses to certain diseases. Shit happened and sheep died. Or another similar train of thought: Feeding cows material from other cows will make better cows. (Yes it's a stretch, but someone thought it made sense at some point)

Point being, science is about knowing the answers, and it's a lot more informative to have a patient than just a cadaver. Not that there isn't some merit in what you're saying, I'm just advising that you not dismiss or misinterpret the concept of thorough vs theatrical scientific progress.

 

[Marowit]

Sounds awesome!

One question though: Is there a sex scene?

For whatever reason sex in movies immediately turns my girlfriend off of movies. Like we went to go see Watchman and she seemed to be enjoying it until the sex scene, and she checked out. Needless to say it was awkward.

Anyway, I'd really like to see this movie, and I wanted to ask to see if I can bring her along or if it's a movie I should see by my lonesome.

there is 2. the second one is the MOST FUCKED UP THING i've ever seen.

Yeah I went to go see it this weekend while she was working, and I'm glad I went alone. I liked the science side of it, I'm currently working as a Tech in a Developmental Neurobiology lab, but the sex scenes were pretty gratuitous.

 

[The3rdEye]

Spoiler

You're totally correct. If you don't know anything about a subject and make the initial breakthrough into it, there are inevitably going to be consequences from carrying out any experiments, that are totally unforeseeable, being that we aren't omniscient.
But you're completely missing my point. Which is that condemning those who take the first step is not only insulting but stands in the way of future development.
Mistakes are bound to happen, and we adapt, we learn from the mistakes and perfect the science so they don't happen again.
You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

And you're wrong about something, science isn't about 'knowing' the answers, its about trial and error, figuring things out from our mistakes.
If someone doesn't take the initial plunge then the discovery is never made.
I'm all for going about things rationally, and not jumping the gun.
But making certain subjects taboo because they're morally questionable, or just simply because they don't fit into someone's beliefs is detrimental to our very future.

For instance. If no one experimented with blood transfusions, then around 99% of the medical procedures performed today would be totally impossible.
So even though we stumbled into that field completely blindfolded, and diseases and rejected transfusions caused the deaths of lots of people. If we hadn't have thrown caution to the wind and tried it any way. Medical science would certainly not have progressed to its current level.

Progress is messy, it doesn't happen without casualties. But its paramount to our continued existence. And sanctioning subjects off because they offend or scare people is ridiculous.

Unless you misstated your argument initially, making a reference to "god's domain" consecutively is a pretty clear indication of a point, so I didn't miss it. Either you're arguing it from a rational standpoint or you're using the complications of religion vs science as a screen. Don't forget that this is all stemming from a review of a movie depicting a purely genetically engineered human. Yes there are costs, but I'd be curious of the results if you were put in a situation where your "advancement at all costs" was a cost to you personally.

 

[Cameron Sours]

Spoiler

This movie will f.* with your mind every five minutes. You will not be comfortable watching this movie. Still, I would say go see it.

 

[rickthetrick]

Okay I'm heading to Home depot for torches and pitchforks. Who wants to join my Angry villager style Michael Bay hunt?

 

[kurupt87]

I heard about this film a couple of months ago and was interested then, I'm still interested now. And, unfortunately, I'm gonna have to make do with being interested for the forseeable future because there is no UK release date yet

Also, I enjoyed your review MovieBob, it made me want to see it even more. Which was cruel of you, seeing as I can't.

Edit: This may have already been posted but I've found a UK release date, August 6th, so still a bit of a wait for this particular island.

 

[Henqie]

hee I like the sound of it but bob opened saying it was horror and I F-ing hate horror so what I'm asking is: is it hardcore damn this is scary horror or is it more like wow that thing came out of nowere it scared me but now im fine horror
I hope this is understandeble for anybody to reply

 

[McNinja]

I honestly do not know why Moviebob praised this movie so highly. The main characters were morons in every way, and the only good character was Dren.

The hell with "toying with God's domain," I'm christian and don't see any reason why creating a being like Dren would be terrible. Maybe if the main chracters weren't emotionally abusive retards, Dren might not have killed everyone.

And "this years district 9?" Hell no. District 9 was an excellent movie, and this... movie doesn't even come close to being anywhere near the level of excellence the was displayed in District 9.

I think that this movie is simply a guide for parents of what not to do.

 

[The3rdEye]

Be it synthesising life from nothing, or attempting to create the particles from the beginning of the universe.

And id have no problems with costs if it resulted in a significant breakthrough.
Although not being a scientist, I don't really think I'l be getting that chance any time soon.

You don't need to be a scientist. You're obviously a full organ donor, so in the event of your death should any of your organs not be viable for transplantation they will instead be used for scientific research. You also obviously donate whole blood and/or plasma on a regular basis on the same principle.

I'd respond to the rest of the post but I would just be repeating myself.

 

[DanHibiki]

at the end, I honestly thought that

Spoiler

Elsa was laughing hysterically while being raped by Dren. It was just so absurd.

Being molested by your trans-sexual mutant clone baby... honestly, you just can't imagine that curing cancer would be such a Greek tragedy.

 

[Oskamunda]

Hahaa...Bob said y'all.

 

[Nohra]

I gave this movie a 3/10.

Reasons:

Spoiler

Standard story of "no balls character only going along with crazy plan for some longshot outcome of indeterminate nature," with lots of "fuck" and fucking sprinkled on top (srsly, too many sex scenes). Coupled with scientists being bad scientists and getting emotionally attached to their project (admittedly, treating adolescent -> adult Dren like a child was fine, but when it came to term early, it should have been "OH FUCK NO," not "WE SHOULD KEEP GOING FOR SCIENCE").

One major science interjection heah: Providing designer organisms made to provide a specific compound with a means of reproduction is a very, very stupid idea. It is entirely possible that due to evolution or epigenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) they could stop providing the compound in question, which could leave you with a whole lot of useless freakish fleshbags.

The whole sex change thing was pretty what the fuck, as well. Yes yes, gene splicing and all that. Let me say that I watched this movie with my bioengineer sister. No mammalian species undergo any kind of a sex change in life (excluding medical procedures on humans). Certain species of fish and reptile can, but the inclusion of their DNA doesn't make a whole lot of sense - at least not the parts that govern reproductive organs. One could argue it was required for the production of certain compounds, I would argue do you really want to be using monster sperm as a topical analgesic. This isn't good science, really, it's science by occlusion of science. This was one of the few strong points of the movie though, a lot of shows or films will be FOR THE SCIENCE and then bungle it terribly.

The special effects are good and all, and the plot holds together somewhat, aside from people's brains turning off regarding the Dren situation in general. Really, is this the only way people can do horror movies? Make people make stupid decisions? But the inclusion of multiple sex scenes, plot driving or otherwise, was just base.

Going back to the subject of "horror movies," none of this movie felt particularly tense. Only the last few minutes before credits, where I-have-a-penis-Dren is hunting down the main characters feels at all 'scary,' and even that was pretty predictable, what with all of the glaringly obvious foreshadowing the movie had going on (p.s. dren raep mother lewl). I wouldn't much call this a horror movie at all. Any potentially horrifying aspect of it before the 'climax' is resolved rather quickly, and the rest of it is "let's raise our horrible freak of nature mutant baby!" "JUST DON'T LET JOHNNY LAW FIND OUT!"

I couldn't really let "THIS HAS GREAT SCIENCE" stand uncontested. It really isn't. Even the scientific method is unsound.

Shoulda requested my money back and bought $16 worth of movie snacks (I wasn't annoyed at the theater, just the movie. I'd rather the theater had my money and the movie didn't get a cut ;P)