Anyone unexpectedly feel down after watching certain films?

I feel sad after some films. Never feel down after them though. One thing that does make me feel down is watching a George Carlin standup :( Not because he's dead just because of how much truth he speaks - it makes you think everything's ****
 
Yeah, Threads is pretty much the king so far...the Road not so much as the film (and more so the book) is about hope from hopelessness, whereas Threads is just about hopelessness.
 
Pretty sure Requiem has left me with subtle anxiety symptoms for the rest of my (now) very short life. I would implore you to avoid this film.
 
Last edited:
Dear Zachary

Pretty much burst into tears when it ended and it had a profound and significant affect on me for a good few days after.

:(
 
Threads is hard to beat in this category, that's for sure!

The only other one I can think of is The Machinist - and that only left me mildly depressed, as opposed to the wrist-slicing pit of despair that threads threw me into :)
 
Just come across this thread and the existence of "Threads" which is quite surprising as I live in South Yorkshire myself and I like to see 'local' films. I am pretty much down in the dumps after reading about it on IMDB, never mind watching it!
 
For me it would have to be "Life is Beautiful". One of the best films of all time, but the ending was just so sad for me.

I think what made it sad was how it really wasn't needed. It was a celebration of life. :(
 
Steve_bullockuk said:
Just come across this thread and the existence of "Threads" which is quite surprising as I live in South Yorkshire myself and I like to see 'local' films. I am pretty much down in the dumps after reading about it on IMDB, never mind watching it!
Click to expand...

Then there's still time to save yourself! Just forget that this thread exists and put the film in question from your mind. It never happened. :)
 
Fail Safe.
Either version. Crushingly claustrophobic and bleak in its inevitable consequences.
Some films require you to use your imagination, whilst others just splurge it all over the screen. This is one of the former.
 
jumpy said:
Fail Safe.
Either version. Crushingly claustrophobic and bleak in its inevitable consequences.
Some films require you to use your imagination, whilst others just splurge it all over the screen. This is one of the former.
Click to expand...

Thanks - watched the 2000 remake last night because of this thread. It was indeed gripping, and the end (as promised) was a little bleak :) The only issue I had was that Richard Dreyfus just didn't work as the POTUS for me.....he was very flat and just not believable, which I was quite surprised about.
 
^^
Glad you liked it.
If I had to choose, one version or the other, it would be the 1964 release. The cast is pretty much perfect, especially when you think of some of the other things they've been in (Larry Hagman - I dream of Jeannie / dallas etc).
I saw the original first then the 2000 remake, and to be fair, the remake is more or less a straight copy iirc with some pretty big names who don't really do the film a disservice.
I preferred Henry Fonda to Drefuss' performance; Fonda has something of a cold stare and a look to his eye that imparts much of the desperation that is not so obvious from the dry dialogue.
That very blandness gave the film an edge for me - to deal with such a horrible situation in an almost reasonable and pragmatic way is what reveals the complete opposite - its utter madness and finality - the twisted logic behind the practical purpose of nuclear weapons and the combined suspicion of the opposing powers who have them.

The book carries much of that dryness, the dusty corridors of power and calculated decisions, weighing the lives of the many against, er, the 'not-so-many' :p
 
Infact I wouldn't even call it making you down , they both send your mind so far past 'down' that it stalls for a moment and you are left feeling 'nothing'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom