>> ^probie:

I pity the actor who tries to fill the shoes of Kurtwood Smith. Clarence Boddicker ranks up there as one of the best villains in cinema history along with Hannibal Lecter, Anton Chigurh and Stansfield.


"Bitches leave."

I pity the actor who tries to fill the shoes of Kurtwood Smith. Clarence Boddicker ranks up there as one of the best villains in cinema history along with Hannibal Lecter, Anton Chigurh and Stansfield.

>> ^Fusionaut:

dead <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
saw this guy in person... hilarious <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">


Thank you for letting me know. Fixed!

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
*promote

Thank you for the promote! You're so awesome!

Even though he was under a ton of makeup, they should have included Mason Verger from Hannibal. Oldman was probably the only saving grace in that film (besides Hopkins).

Indeed, it was Hannibal's precise coordination (and his African cavalry) that allowed him to surround the Romans at Cannae, perhaps the first such manoeuvre in history (IANAH!). If he had capitalized on his early victories and marched on Rome after Cannae, he may well have taken the city. Instead he decided to dick around in southern Italy trying to convince the local tribes to join him, which gave Rome a chance to catch its breath...

"Their drills were bloodless battles, their battles were bloody drills"

What raised a smile from me about this video was the "checkerboard" formation, all I can say is that it speaks volumes from a bird's eye viewpoint in that Rome learned it's lesson from Hannibal Barca on August 2nd, 216 BC

Trivial fact:- More Roman soldiers died in one day at Cannae than American soldiers in the ENTIRE Vietnam war.

^Upvoted^

A. Alien
B. Beatle Juice
C. Chucky
D. Dracula
E. ET (Extra Terrestrial)
F. Freddy Kruger
G. Godzilla
H. Incredible Hulk
I. Incubus (?)
J. Jason Voorhees
K. King Kong
L. Hannibal Lecter
M. The Mummy
N. Nosferatu
O. Octopus (??)
P. Pinhead
Q. Queen of the Damned
R. Razorback
S. Satan
T. Terminator
U. Uruk-hai
V. Darth Vader
W. Werewolf
X. Xenomorph (?)
Y. Yeti
Z. Zombies

>> ^renatojj:

Wow, if he stayed in character all the time, I bet he'd be chewing on Jodie Foster's ribs before the end of the movie. That's how amazing this actor is.


Yeah, fair enough but I still prefer Brian Cox's take on "Hannibal Lecktor" in Manhunter. Hopkins likens his performance to a children's monster tale and he's right- his lecter has the characteristics of a classic movie monster. Cox on the other hand was chillingly real.

I've always wondered why Brian Cox didn's reprise the role in Silence of the Lambs, he refuses to comment on it.

edit: Okay, he has spoken about it, if anyone's interested this is a very good interview http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1075052/brian_cox_interview_manhunter_hannibal_the_cannibal_adaptation_michael_mann_and_brett_ratner.html

When I saw the first teaser I was absolutely thrilled. Now, after seeing the full trailer doubts begin to creep in.
I keep remembering that Ridley Scott not only directed Alien and Blade Runner, but also gave us Kingdom Of Heavens, Hannibal, 1492.....and G.I.Jane.

The other thing that does not sit right with this trailer is the old (and stupid) aliens inspired/founded/visited/created all the ancient civilizations on earthe story that
a) remind me too much of Alianes vs. Predators and
b) does simply not fit in with the tone of Alien/s/³/4.

I keep my fingers crossed for a great movie.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Tim Roth was such an excellent baddie in this film. You SO wanted Rob Roy to dice him up like Hannibal Lecter.


This might be the best sword-fight ever captured on film. Certainly is my favorite.

Interesting you bring up Hannibal Lecter. Brian Cox (who was in Rob Roy) was the original, and still the best actor to play the role in "Manhunter" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091474/. His Hannibal Lecktor was menacing and chilling- much more so than Anthony Hopkins in my opinion. Tom Noonan as the serial killer "The Tooth Fairy" was positively terrifying and utterly convincing.

Now, as for Videosift's very own crazed killer, I wonder how @choggie is doing these days?

*promote

He's conflating a lot of stuff by the end of this.

Knowing "where the pickle barrel is" has not "always been the harder problem". In the fleet battles of the 18th century, they often had a very good idea where there opponents were for weeks or months. They knew where enemy shipyards were, just like the Allies in WWII knew where that chemical plant was - they just couldn't strike them effectively. Modern weaponry would have insta-won lots of historic conflicts as there would have been no problem finding stuff to blow up. It's not like Norden was trying to solve the wrong problem, he just didn't have the right solution.

Sometimes stuff doesn't work in the field - sometimes it does. There's interesting lessons there, but they're unrelated to the next thing he talks about, which is:

Sometimes you can't use your great tech effectively. They can hide the SCUDs. The Taliban is not going to all get together like a Napoleonic army or try to make a big Hannibal pincer. They make themselves harder to be found.

But that doesn't mean the weapon is ineffective - it's very effective, it limits your opponents possible tactics. And those limited tactics are one reason why direct American casualties are so low in modern wars - the enemy can't ever really show in force, and thus only has a limited set of tactics available.

Sometimes your equipment or strategy is going to directly work, sometimes it's going to work less directly. Every action you take could provide a reaction, and sometimes those could be very bad. Hunting with drones might create a terror attack across the world. There's interesting ideas there, but again you can't just conflate it all together as "technology and war... something something... Norden bombsight".

And it certainly doesn't reason into: War is often a bad idea. Obviously that's true, but it doesn't follow from the story. Sure, sometimes having good tech can make war seem more attractive than it would if we had less tech. You get the illusion of clean war.

Interesting. But the fact that the above is true - that Americans can kill thousands of dirty foreigners while suffering few casualties - is kind of the opposite lesson from the Norden bombsight. If the Americans had a bunch of "Norden bombsight" style ineffective weapons, they wouldn't have nearly the success they do in slaughtering people who were born in the wrong place and maybe the US would end up in less wars.

So maybe that's the lesson? It's better to have complex, works-in-the-lab-only tech, because otherwise it'll be too easy to kill people? Or something?

Anyways, the base story is interesting - his attempts to supply the moral at the end are much less so.

The interaction between tech and war goes lots of different ways, and I'd say sometimes the "Norden"s of the world are right and their war technology does reduce aggregate suffering. For example, I think it's at least arguable that the tech race prevented the Cold War from ending in a total war scenario that would have killed millions. (Note: if you plan on telling me that I'm crazy and the Cold War was all some kind of fraud or illusion or power consolidation for the elite or that Russia was never a threat or whatever, don't feel bad if I don't bother to answer - it's probably because I'm intimidated by the great arguments you made.)

So literally they got cooked?

I can't help but to wonder if it smelled like cooked meat...

(Hannibal Lecter shlurping sound)

>> ^alizarin:

The dog broke free of the chain off camera and was charging the officer so they decided to put it down.
The only reason I can think of why this would be necessary after on the catch poll is if they don't have an animal control dept.
Judging by Wikipedia and satellite view of the town and a search of the city website.... they might be too small to have an animal control department.


From the article, "Howell testified that the dog growled as he tried to load it into a truck, that it later broke free from a chain tied to the vehicle and eventually charged as he tried to capture it with a six-foot catchpole."

Except, watching the video is proof of some exaggeration in his statements. At time 4:39 the dog moves off camera, and Howell follows it with the catchpole. Less than ten seconds later Howell manages to slip the catchpole over the dog's head and secure it. The dog immediately flips out, coming back onto camera with the chain still attached (until it visibly flies off at the end of his tether). The dog continuously tries to escape, alternating between blindly running, and turning to bite at the thing around its neck. There's about thirty seconds of this before the dog seems to give up, and stands still. And then, it gets shot.

So, the dog broke off the chain only as a direct result of having been noosed by the officers. She never charged directly at the officers, and she was shot only when she was visibly no longer resisting. This is quite a different picture from the impression the article gives, that the dog slipped the chain and was charging the officers when it was shot. If it had happened as they said, I'd have felt that it was unfortunate, but justifiable. But this? There had to be options left to them before shooting someone's dog to death.