Why did I just lose 107 minutes of my life?!
-
haewatein — 14 years ago(May 01, 2011 08:43 AM)
This film is not made for weed neither does it base on this drug.
_
SEUL CONTRE TOUS
www.myspace.com/anzycpethian
www.pbase.com/anzycpethian -
nathanderusha — 14 years ago(May 04, 2011 02:05 AM)
All I can say is, read the book. I have yet to see the movie, but I can guarantee that the book would easily clear up any misconceptions that you might have with the movie.
Altered States is the story of a psuedo-genius with a God complex. If that sort of material isn't your cup of tea, then the rest of it certainly wont be. It deals with some heavy metaphysical and transcendentalist ideals (a la 2001: A Space Odyssey) and is rife with medical terminology pulled straight from Harvard doctors and scientists that Chayefsky interviewed and consorted with through his time writing the novel. -
ObscureAuteur — 11 years ago(October 11, 2014 02:03 PM)
I have read the book and seen the movie and it is as faithful as it should be. No surprise since Chayefsky, well experienced with screenplays by this time, had complete script control to the great annoyance of director Russell.
CB
Good Times, Noodle Salad -
Strazdamonas — 14 years ago(February 19, 2012 12:36 PM)
Watching a movie stoned is NEVER a good state of mind to enjoy it. Most hallucination sequences happened due to the feeling depravation tank and the indian drug. indeed it was a bunch of random images, but i think it was supposed to be that way.
The guy came out of the tank a bit more regressed each time. First - religiuos. then the signs of transformation, then caveman and eventually into more primarial being. in the end, he turns into nothing.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually. -
moonmanlunatic — 12 years ago(July 07, 2013 02:24 PM)
well being stoned when watching a movie has never made the movie worse or more boring, it's just a light and subtle change in perspective, and if you've been smoking for a while you won't trip. I watch all movies stoned and I love it.
. -
alan_ryder — 13 years ago(April 08, 2012 05:26 PM)
I guess I was, and am, predisposed to enjoy this film. I sense a bit of denial in your response. After all it is a frightening thought that with the proper meditation techniques we could discover the secrets of life and the universe in our memory. I believe it's called genetic memory. You have the memory of the first humans in yours. Indeed, the first sentient creatures. Recognizing it is one issue, for it visits us in dreams if we aren't too troubled in our daily life. I felt this was well explained in the film.
-
The_Inverted_Necroyeti — 13 years ago(April 28, 2012 09:31 PM)
For those interested, have a look at chapter 3 of Jane Dunlap's Exploring Inner Space called "the Evolution of the Soul".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24626833/Exploring-Inner-Space-Personal-Experiences-under-LSD-25
Jane Dunlap (aka Adele Davis) was one of the first writers to experiment with LSD, quite a few year before the hippie scene. In this chapter, she recalls an LSD experience where she claims to have experienced evolution during one of her trips.
What I find fascinating, is that has often been reported in psychedelic experiences throughout the century - do a bit of research and you'll find out this is a common theme in psychedelic literature.
'Marxism is the opiate of the unstoned classes' - Art Kleps -
cliff_niblr031 — 13 years ago(June 29, 2012 10:24 AM)
I would have thought being stoned would have been an advantage in your situation.
So, other than NOT making musicians "better" at their craft drugs also do not help when watching a character in a film take an experimental psychodelic trip through sensory deprivation.
"Drugs are bad, m'kay" Mr. Mackey from South Park. -
drmohamedosama88 — 12 years ago(April 22, 2013 01:55 AM)
I wasted 102 minutes only !!!
http://www.imdb.com/list/-YoExAydfKs/ -
Dark_Star1 — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 10:33 PM)
Seemed like the whole story only existed so the director could make a film full of random BS and claim it was art, or maybe even science? What the hell do I know. I have no idea what the director was thinking.
Im presuming someone is going to say that I just didnt 'get it'. Well Id appreciate it if someone could explain it to me because what I just saw was pretty awful.
Don't ask me to clear it up for you, because I don't have a clue either. This was a horrible movie - quite possibly the worst major release picture I've ever seen.
I have never seen a movie with more painfully terrible dialogue, and in most cases the delivery was even worse than the lines themselves. It was like the "actors" were just reading lines from a teleprompter, without ever rehearsing any of them. I gave it a "2", and that was generous. Complete piece of pointless, pretentious, ponderous crap.
