Talk: The Number 2. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. How about a citation? The. Shadow. Zero 0. February 2. 00. 7 (UTC)If it wasn't on the trailer, then it should be removed from the page anyway. My calander will end on December 3. I don't buy another calendar, will the world end? Also, this looks like a stupid movie. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind is Jim Carrey's good . Professor Chaos 0. February 2. 00. 7 (UTC)In the trivia secsion, saying that this film . Example: both movies are about a guy who has a book written about him, and someone (whether it be the guy or someone else) is supposed to die at the end. KKIPPES 0. 7: 3. 2, 1. March 2. 00. 7 (UTC)Issues I have w/ the article. Occultists Worship Numbers. Occultists have used 333 as the hidden symbol by which they present the more offensive number 666. PeekYou's people search has 1 people named Topsy Mc and you can find info, photos, links, family members and more. Search by Name Search Tools. Zeitungskritiken zu Number 23 bei Metacritic.com (englisch). Exercise Motivation - Weight loss surgeon Dr Shillingford pushes exercise for health and longevity! The title should be 'The Number 2. It would clarify things for people before they click the link. Randomfrenchie 0. Http:// Title: 9789401414685, Author: Uitgeverij Lannoo, Name: 9789401414685, Length. Numbers 32:23 New International Version (NIV) 23 “But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the Lord; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out. PutYrDukesUp 22 points 23 points 24 points 3 years ago. The Number 23 on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more. The Number 23: A Novel of Obsession by Topsy Kretts, which she gives to Walter. The Number 23 movie YIFY subtitles. The book Agatha finds (or does it find her?) when waiting for Walter outside a used bookshop is 'The Number 23' by Topsy Kretts. February 2. 00. 7 (UTC)We (the wiki collective) should add a critical response to this article. The movie is being almost universally trashed (not surprising, considering how much the trailer insults our intelligence) Young. Aristotle 2. 0: 1. February 2. 00. 7 (UTC)Agreed. If I have the time, I'll take a look around and collect some articles this weekend. MSN was just vicious; they panned the film, the dialogue, the writing, and of course, Joel Schumacher. On a side note, isn't it a tad self- contradictory to have a ? That sounds a concept slapped together by tragically unhip MBA's. Akbeancounter. 21: 3. February 2. 00. 7 (UTC)I already added that using rottentomatoes as a summarizing tool. Quadzilla. 99 0. 9: 2. March 2. 00. 7 (UTC)I think the plot summary was a bit spotty. It should be looked over for clarity issues Nevermore. March 2. 00. 7Trivia says ? Does the guy have 1. I don't understand this. There's still a lot more to do, of course. I agree that some critical response is probably called for. But how to go about it seems a matter of taste. The difficulty, with a movie this incoherent, is that it's almost impossible to not explain the movie (as an encyclopedia entry should do) in a way that does not fill in the many blanks that the film itself leaves. That is, the risk is that the reviewer will tie together loose ends that were in the story, simply out of the necessity of trying to give the reader a clear sense of what the movie was (apparently?) about. The review will, in other words, often be more coherent than the actual film, which raises issues about interpretive license. Not something that would have to rule out our trying, just something that's always a problem with films that actually make little sense. C d h 1. 4: 0. 4, 2. August 2. 00. 7 (UTC)euphoria?? Surrendering to paranoia isn't a sensation of well- being or elation. April 2. 00. 9 (UTC) Harlequin. The Plot. I haven't seen the film and so I cannot correct it, perhaps somebody else could. Dusis 1. 9: 3. 7, 1. March 2. 00. 7 (UTC)I agree. Someone needs to edit that. May 2. 01. 5 (UTC)The plot description fits so and so. The part where the protagonost (Walter) discovers that he actually is the killer is more complicated. I just saw the film, and I understood most of it as corresponding to the plot description. I did not understand how the professor, the old man whose address was given back in the red book, was killed and the plot description does not mention it - probably important to understand that scene. Did the old man cut his own throat or did Walter kill (again)? The main theme of the film (there is no fate, it's your decision which counts) is fairly well demonstrated by the plot. I think the plot has enormous plot- holes, though. Just because Discordianism makes a big deal about 2. They just adopted it, compiled some instances, and came up with some theories, and i guess promoted it. People WERE obsessed with the number long before Discordianism, and there are plenty of people who are or have been so obsessed or interested and are not Discordians at all! As a perfect example, this movie and its characters have pretty much NOTHING to do with Discordianism outside of the number 2. While 2. 3 is a very prevalent Discordian idea, as Dicordianism is rather a dis- organized religion, it is by no means required dogma, and can easily be seen as not particularly necessary nor related to most other core Discordian beliefs. Calling the 2. 3 enigma a . Plus, 2. 3 is pretty incidental to Discordianism. The important number to Discordians is 5. July 2. 00. 7 (UTC)Topsy Kretts? That does not make any sense in this plot summary. Sirius, who is Topsy Kretts, became obsessed with the number 2. Sparrow's book for himself and publishing it. So when he sees the man that was the cause for him becoming obsessed with the number 2. August 2. 00. 7 (UTC)It is among the plot holes in this movie. Suicide is a major theme in this pic but an explanation other than . Sugestion is that 2. Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 0. August 2. 00. 7 (UTC)Sigh. Because you believe the number 2. People like you are just idiotic, you think that because 2. It is not a plot hole because you want a character to behave a certain way and they do not. Sirius kills himself because he is deranged after years of being . Suddenly the man who created all these problems for himself has come back into his life, so he kills himself because he can't handle it. Like, strangely enough, many suicides. April 2. 00. 9 (UTC) Harlequin. Clean up tag. No reason was given back in May, and the many edits since then probably took care of whatever reason the tagger had but neglected to write down. Robert Happelberg 2. August 2. 00. 7 (UTC)Excessively Long Plot Summary Tag. It was because I only watched parts of the film and I was totally confused by what was happening. I wanted a detailed plot summary and I knew I would probably find it here on wikipedia. I thought the editor did a pretty good job on the summary. I definitely wouldn't want the article to have less detail in the plot summary. What do other people think? But but despite their failing to do so, I have to agree that the plot summary was excessively long when I read it earlier today. There's too much of talk of how such and such numbers add up to 2. Here at Wikipedia it would be good enough to list just two or three such examples that have the most bearing on the plot and to mention that Walter Sparrow does a lot of these calculations in the film. Though it wouldn't hurt Wikipedia to have an external link to a page. I totally agree. I really appreciate the effort of the editor here giving us that much information, but I would certain need less information to get an idea od what the plot is about. A friend of mine recommended me this film, so I wanted to know the plot a little bit better before trying the rental option. I got a little bit dissapointed because here I found more than the plot; actually, I found the whole story, including the ending. I think that it is important when editing a plot just to stick to what is needed to understand the story, and maybe give some other interesting facts related with the film, characters, or events mentioned in the film. But I would certainly skip the lenghty description, with all the details, and the ending part. Would it be possible to edit it in this direction? Philbuck. 22. 2 (talk) 2. January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)Well, Philbuck. And then you can revise the plot section per your criticism. Ward. 30. 01 (talk) 2. January 2. 00. 8 (UTC)DVD Rental money. Somebody needs to read thru it and give a good cleanup. Some would say the film. Sirius a reference to R. Agatha Sparrow + Robin Sparrow + Walter Sparrow = 5. Who's Ned? 7. 1. 1. February 2. 01. 3 (UTC)The dog. Changed the sentence in the article, as the name of the dog might have some relevance inside the movie, but not in the summary of the movie. Wild Rye - Page 2. The Number 2. 3 promised to be a sublimely disorienting voyage into paranoia. A little Eternal Sunshine followed by a slice of Pi. But it just doesn’t quite make it. Too bad the studio won’t take this film back into the editing bay for a little knife- work. It’s about 2/3 of the way toward being great cinema. That last third is pure stink. The film starts with an interesting premise–Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey) becomes obsessed with a novela that his wife Agatha (Virginia Madsen) finds in a second hand book shop. Sparrow is intrigued by the way the book overlaps his own life. The book’s protagonist is a detective. Sparrow is a dog- catcher but he collected detective magazines as a child. He also owned a book called Fingerling, which happens to be the detective’s name. The detective becomes obsessed with a woman named Pink (Lynn Collins)–which happens to be Agatha’s maiden name. Pink, better known as the Suicide Blonde, feels terminally haunted by the number 2. Sparrow’s curiosity about the novela turns into paranoia and he becomes convinced that the number 2. Fingerling. 2. 3 is everywhere–Sparrow’s street address adds up to 2. His name adds up to 2. He was born on February (2) third (3). He met his wife when both were age 2. Unfortunately the film doesn’t suck the viewer into Sparrow’s paranoid mindset, thanks largely to an intrusive voice- over that keeps reminding us that this is Sparrow’s story, not ours. Not that there aren’t plenty of opportunities to disolve the viewer’s ego boundaries–I found myself puzzling over all kinds of weird patterns in the film. Carrey plays a dog catcher and a detective, bringing to mind Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. The Number 2. 3 was shot in Ventura county (where I live), at places that I’ve frequented (Libbey Park) and if you add up the numeric values of V- e- n- t- u- r- a you get 1. Whoa, at this point I should be feeling that the movie was personally telegraphing hidden secrets of a Philip Dick- ian reality, something like the way I felt when I watched Hiroshima Mon Amour in a creepy art house theater. But I just didn’t feel it. For me The Number 2. I realized that I was watching a rehash of Secret Window (Despite the associations you can make: Sparrow–> Johnny Depp–> Mort, the protagonist of Secret Window. Mort kills his own dog. Sparrow (The Number 2. Ned the dog, the Guardian of the Dead. Spooky, isn’t it?)The third act of The Number 2. Just keep twisting the Rubik’s cube a few more times and we’ll have the answer. The bad guy will go to jail. Everyone else will live happily ever after. The last nail in the coffin for The Number 2. Capra- esque ending, punctuated by a gratuitous Bible reference, Numbers 3. I left the theater feeling like I had been cheated. The actors, and the story itself deserved better treatment. Then it happened. This morning I woke with a Number 2. Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai, mentally replaying the squence of a fight where he put a dozen ninjas out of their misery, I had the strong sense that something isn’t right. Something isn’t finished. The wrong person went to prison. Consider this: we know that Topsy Kretts wrote the novela before Walter and Agatha met. So how is it that Agatha’s maiden name shows up in the novel? And who followed Agatha into the insane asylum? And why was Sirius Leary using Topsy’s PO Box? These are some serious, diabolical questions left unanswered by the screenplay. And somehow, in the end, I just don’t care.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |