Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The 1983 film Testament

I just want to say that this is one of the BEST films I have ever seen. I was 7 when it came out and had never heard of it- I only rented it because of watching the Oscar clips on Youtube and Jane Alexander was nominated for Best Actress.

And an amazing musical score (even though it wasn't much of one)

The scene with the mother and daughter (the wonderful Roxanna Zal) discussing what is like to make love to someone is absolutely devastating.

How the FUCK Shirley Maclaine won the Oscar over Jane Alexander for this film actually shocks me. It reminds me of Julia Roberts vs. Ellen Burstyn back in 2000 or so.

The film actually made me think about the people in Japan more than anything..

by Anonymousreply 7202/16/2013

Shirley won a career Oscar. That and for "blah blah blah" (watch her delivery) and "Give my daughter the shot! (beat) Thank you."

I think Testament is pretty incredible, too, and testimony to Alexander, it's hard to separate her embodiment of loss from the whole story.

I have to say though I think Streep's Silkwood is her most underrated performance, one of her most credible transformations.

And Julie Walters in Educating Rita was classic.

by Anonymousreply 105/02/2012

You can watch "Testament" on YouTube in full.

"Educating Rita" is also on YouTube, in full.

Both great films.

by Anonymousreply 205/02/2012

I quite like Shirley in Terms, and I especially like both of those scenes you point out. And I totally agree about Silkwood. But boy oh boy, I was never much a fan of Jane's, but now I am. I have wanted to write an actress a letter, but this time I do. I know. MARY!

by Anonymousreply 305/02/2012

That was one of the best years for actress nominations--any of them could have deservedly taken it home--MacLaine and Winger for Terms, Alexander for Testament, Streep for Silkwood, and Walters for Educating Rita. So different. I suspect MacLaine got it in part as a career award, but also, quite fairly, because she so successfully navigated the comic and tragic dimensions of the character and plot. Walters was such a breath of fresh air--while the script is a bit hackneyed, she and Caine were marvelous together. Winger had a grit and honesty in that role. And Alexander a brilliance. Ironically--and I am a Streep fan--Streep's was probably the least award-worthy of them--but still deserving the nomination (though I know many a queen will scream Barbra was robbed for Yentl!)

by Anonymousreply 405/02/2012

Good movie admirable for its restraint but there's a Japanese-American kid with Downs Syndrome in it and his name is...Hiroshi. Uhhh, a little heavy-handed of them to name him that, I think.

by Anonymousreply 505/02/2012

You probably already know that this movie was originally made for PBS, but was deemed so good that they released it to the theatres first. If they hadn't, Jane Alexander wouldn't have received an Oscar nomination (though she probably would have won the Emmy.) As I recall, it only played in a couple "art" theatres for a week or two in my area.

Don't want to give away too much, but my favorite scene is the one that starts with Jane quietly sewing....

by Anonymousreply 605/02/2012

oh, you mean the infamous dog scene, r6. It's description was why I skipped Testament.

Alexander and Streep didn't have a chance with their leftist material in Reagan era Hollywood. If you have any doubts recall Ed Asner's treatment during that same period.

by Anonymousreply 705/02/2012

You are so wrong on Streep r4. It's one of her best performances. No, I'm not a Streep fangurl. MacLaine absolutely deserved the award. Yes, over Alexander.

by Anonymousreply 805/02/2012

I love Testament. It's one of my all-time favorite movies. I love Silkwood as well -- whoda thunk Cher could actually play a believable lesbian?

Terms of Endearment, OTOH, is the perfect example of a movie everyone seemed to like that I hated with a passion. Hell, MacLain was better in Steel Magnolias, for chrissake.

by Anonymousreply 905/02/2012

Come on, it was much easier to euthanize with the conflicts in Terms than the themes of Testimony and Silkworm. Having seen the performances in the theater I remember the way Terms hooked the audience into a ride that rang true with anyone who's ever had to deal with the big C.

Also, The Day After stole Testimony's thunder.

by Anonymousreply 1005/02/2012

I never saw this in a theatre. I remember when it was on TV. I don't think it was released in my area.

There was another end of the world aswe know it nuclear movie a Canadian movie called Threads, I think. It was more realistic and much bleaker.

by Anonymousreply 1105/02/2012

Love this film. Harrowing film when everything is normal one moment and then turns to hell the next. The emotional impact is like a sledgehammer which is in large part due to janes performance. This was a strong year for best actress nominees. But i still believe shirley deserved it. Jane is one of the best actresses around. 4 oscar nominations, 2 emmys and 1 tony!

by Anonymousreply 1205/02/2012

Testament is great.

by Anonymousreply 1305/02/2012

What was the name of the movie where the woman that came back from the dead and could heal people? I think it was an early 1980's movie.

For some reason, I thought it was Testament, but I was wrong.

Thanks!

by Anonymousreply 1405/02/2012

Oh, and Threads (British) was soooo disturbing.

by Anonymousreply 1505/02/2012

all i know is that testament has a 7.2 rating on imdb, terms of endearment has a 7.3 rating.

by Anonymousreply 1605/02/2012

Resurrection was Ellen Burstyn's Oscar winning performance as a faith healer. I believe it later went to series as a dramedy, but with Eileen Brennan in the title role.

by Anonymousreply 1705/02/2012

Resurection r14

by Anonymousreply 1805/02/2012

Whats interesting is the director really didnt do a whole lot after that film...the occasional tv movie here and there...

by Anonymousreply 1905/02/2012

R17 -

Resurrection!!!! (forehead slap)

Thanks!

by Anonymousreply 2005/02/2012

R17 Ellen didnt win the oscar for this film but she won for alice doesnt live here anymore in 1975.

by Anonymousreply 2105/03/2012

[quote]I believe it later went to series as a dramedy, but with Eileen Brennan in the title role.

Is that true?

by Anonymousreply 2205/03/2012

Testament..great movie.

by Anonymousreply 2305/03/2012

The film took the most mundane acts of normal living and turned them into rapidly escalating heartbreak.

by Anonymousreply 2405/03/2012

Some years you have all five women in Best Actress so good, you want to give all of them the Oscar.

that year was one of them

by Anonymousreply 2505/03/2012

i googled 'testament dog scene' and this thread was in the top 3. Google is spooky. The posts are only a day old.

by Anonymousreply 2605/03/2012

The scene of Alexander burying her child is one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever watched in a film.

That movie depressed me for days.

by Anonymousreply 2705/03/2012

R10: "much easier to euthanize with the conflicts"

Laughing on the outside, crying on the inside.

by Anonymousreply 2805/03/2012

I think the scene where Jane puts Lukas Haas little body in a sink filled with (precious & scarce)water to allow him a little comfort since he has severe diarrhea from the radiation is utterly heartbreaking. The quietude he displays in the face of imminent death made me cry like a baby.

by Anonymousreply 2905/03/2012

Exactly the part that stays burned in my brain, R29.

by Anonymousreply 3005/03/2012

I cannot bear to watch this film, it is too painful. The other film I cannot watch is On the Beach in either the older or newer versions. They are both absolutely devoid of hope of any kind.

by Anonymousreply 3105/03/2012

I thought Testament was incredibly unrealistic as a depiction of a post-nuclear world.. It has a late 1970s/early 80s TV Movie the Week feel to it even though it was from PBS.. It seemed as realistic as a "Special Presentation: "The Walton's -- Nuclear Disaster."

It does have historical significance in that it shows Kevin Costner has always portrayed his characters with the same semi-comatose performance. And it shows a late 70s/early 80s tv movie phenomena -- really obviously Jewish kids playing the children of WASPy parents. (Lukas Haas might be able to pass for a son of Jane Alexander and William Devane but the two oldest kids look like they wandered in from a casting call for "Yentl").

I guess people liked it because it did not show a shoot 'em up post-apocalyptic world with survivalist militias and Mad Maxes roaming the landscape, which was the most common portrayal of a post-nuclear world. Or because it shunned showing what radiation sickness really looks like. Nobody ever cried in pain before they died. And the town of Hamlin looks fine -- there are trees and grass and unbroken roadways. How could that be after there was a prolonged nuclear flash? The family huddles on the living room floor as a blinding series of flashes take place. But not a window is broken, nothing has melted, nobody has gone blind.

A few seconds showing a mute Lukas Haas being bathed of what appears to be blood stands in for radiation sickness. How convenient for mom that her son is suck for a few seconds before he dies. Her daughter simply died. One day she was there, asking mom questions. The next scene she is in shows her wrapped in bed sheets. That's pretty convenient. The neighbor's kid, we are told, simply curled up into a ball and died. That was nice of him. I guess he didn't want to cause a rumpus by painfully bleeding out since Jane Alexander had been nice enough to take him in. Mom has radiation sickness too, but she only pukes once, pulls out a few strands of hair and marshalls on, taking care of everyone else. The oldest son gets dark circles under his eyes and breathes heavily while bicycling up a hill. Otherwise, he's ok. Even while telling his mom it really is time to bury a family member; come on mom, pick it up and lets move on.

It was a pretty way to die. No pain, no tears, no nuclear winter on the horizon months after the event. The doom is acceptably pristine for its intended television audience.

by Anonymousreply 3205/03/2012

Hey R32! Do you watch snuff films for fun?

by Anonymousreply 3305/03/2012

No, I don't. But I do expect a film about a nuclear attack to be slightly realistic, not a sanitized Waltons version of the Attack of the Invisible Boogeyman which silently kills children and old people and causes dark undereye makeup to appear on otherwise healthy-looking individuals.

I don't understand the raves for Jane Alexander's performance, either. She just acts stoic. That's not too difficult to pull off. I guess we are to be bowled over by the fact that she is not seen wailing and beating her chest all the time? I'm supposed to be impressed because she stands in front if a bonfire of bodies for a full minute before saying, "Damn you, whoever did this!"

I'm just not impressed by this "understated nuclear calamity." I've read reviews of people who claimed to have cried throughout the second half if the film and to have been emotionally wrung out by it. OK.

But to me, it was so obviously written by a mom. It was such a Mom Nuclear Attack. First, the attack is nice and neat. It doesn't cause any damage to the house or to the environment. Thank goodness! Who wants to clean up after a nuclear blast sans vacuum cleaner! Or have to cut up downed trees without the man of the house and an electric chainsaw! And if mom's flowerbed had wilted after that series if blinding atomic flashes, she'd have pitched a fit!

The protagonist just sits there in her house waiting for her husband to come home. Then she waits for her children to die. And it is all sanitized for your viewing pleasure. And it's about [italic] the children [/italic] in the end, isn't it? The world simply [italic] didn't deserve the children [/italic].

Get it? Hamelin, CA? Pied Piper? Takes away the children? Because the town doesn't deserve them? A little disabled Japanese boy named [italic] Hiroshi [/italic] ?

Such subtle symbolism (Ouch! My head! Who hit it with a sledgehammer?)

And I love the way everyone goes out in the contaminated rain. I guess they figure "WTF? I don't need to worry about catching a cold anymore. I may as well let contaminated rain run all over me and move the plot along." Especially since there is no nuclear winter several months after every city in the US (and presumably the USSR) has been leveled by ICBMs.

by Anonymousreply 3405/03/2012

I'm with R32/34. That 1984 BBC TV drama "Threads" was a much more accurate and devastating portrayal of a nuclear attack.

by Anonymousreply 3505/03/2012

R32 / R34, you are way off, in so many ways.

First of all, in 1983, everyone's knowledge of the consequence of a nuclear attack was different. How they would react, die, etc., has been the subject of much research and speculation, and the reactions are just as plausible as anything you seem to expect.

But what you really expect everyone to act like you would. You fault her for being too stoic but too much a mother. You fault people for trying to go on with their lives, when everything that emerges through your post, from your cultural references, to your attitude, suggests you live a very different life.

I can tell you my mother and my family would have reacted almost EXACTLY like this. My mom would have cried more, but knowing how she acted when my father died at a young age, had very much these attitudes - don't panic, go on, check on the neighbors, stay put.

Where you get your hysterical overreaction to this film is something only you can know.

by Anonymousreply 3605/03/2012

the film needed mutants, some kind of monsters to better market the situation to filmgoers. It would have been awesome to see Jane Alexander stoic with a rifle.

by Anonymousreply 3705/03/2012

Gried porn of the most insulting kind. And Shirley MacLaine gave one of the top 5 Best Actress performances in film history. Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 3805/03/2012

[quote] ...euthanize...Testimony...

by Anonymousreply 3905/03/2012

R32, they make it pretty clear that the nuclear blast occured in somewhere like San Francisco and I think the family lived quite far away from there.

I do agree about Hiroshi, though.

by Anonymousreply 4005/03/2012

R40 -- it took place in Sunnyvale, CA, just south of Palo Alto.

by Anonymousreply 4105/03/2012

R34 -- the script was written from a three page short story of stunningly spare prose, which was published in Ms. Magazine in August 1981.

by Anonymousreply 4205/03/2012

it lacked zombies.

by Anonymousreply 4305/03/2012

[quote]And it shows a late 70s/early 80s tv movie phenomena -- really obviously Jewish kids playing the children of WASPy parents. (Lukas Haas might be able to pass for a son of Jane Alexander and William Devane but the two oldest kids look like they wandered in from a casting call for "Yentl").

Except Rossie Harris was your typical, all-American, freckled California teenager (born in Ventura in 1969--check out his early pics) and Roxana Zal is of Arab descent. She also played Ted Danson's incest-victim daughter in "Something about Amelia."

by Anonymousreply 4405/03/2012

R32:

Phenomenon = singular

Phenomena = plural

by Anonymousreply 4505/03/2012

[quote]a late 70s/early 80s tv movie phenomena -- really obviously Jewish kids playing the children of WASPy parents.

That was all over TV in the 90s -- remember Seventh Heaven and the youngest daughter, obviously fathered by the local CPA?

by Anonymousreply 4605/03/2012

I love this film so much. The scene where she puts her son and mentally challenged neighbor in the car to turn on the gas gets me every time I watch it.

by Anonymousreply 4705/03/2012

Both this film and "Threads" are terrifying and haunting in ways that "The Day After" simply is not. I've only ever seen Testament once and I remember it vividly. Same with "Threads."

by Anonymousreply 4805/03/2012

The Day After was so cheesy, but its message was powerful. I loved Threads. I also love "On The Beach" even though it did not age well and the characters didn't have authentic Aussie accents.

by Anonymousreply 4905/03/2012

"I have to say though I think Streep's Silkwood is her most underrated performance, one of her most credible transformations."

Agreed. You completely forget you're watching Streep. Down to the body language. Cher and Kurt Russell are both equally good.

Also agree it should have been a 5-way tie that year.

by Anonymousreply 5005/03/2012

I know this is about testament - but just to backtrack a little...

Re: Shirley MacLaine in Terms of Endeament - it's been a while since I've seen it, so maybe I need to view it again - but isn't her performance in this more or less the same as in everything she's done in her senior years? I mean - her schtick in Postcards was very similar - ditto Steel Magnolias - only with the addition of a southern-ish accent. She's just Shirley doing her ornery and challenging but ultimately cute and funny - and wise! - old gal...

So can't understand the oscar - cept as a career gesture.

Not like this is uncommon - The Hepburn's are much the same in most of their roles (but love em dearly!) - and Judi Dench and Maggie Smith just do the sane thing pretty much all the time now - but they're fabulous!

Just dunno if it's a big stretch or playing much against type and gotta wonder if any of it is really that Oscar-worthy?

by Anonymousreply 5105/04/2012

And sometimes the only person who shouldn't win it does. Tough luck, bitches!

by Anonymousreply 5205/04/2012

[quote]Helen "The Forehead" Hunter

by Anonymousreply 5305/04/2012

I would disagree with that characterization of her performance, R51. It's not just an old-lady schtick.

The film is very much about a woman who is difficult and has high expectations of everyone conforming to her, coming to terms with the loss of those people and rejection when they die.

Her grief over her struggles with her daughter was portrayed with great depth. It's probably her best performance of her career.

by Anonymousreply 5405/04/2012

I saw this film in 1982, when it was shown on television. I was a college freshman, studying theatre -- which was my entire life.

The film shocked me to my core and truly scared the shit out of me.

Certainly it laid a seed that later in my life grew into my activism and my inability to turn the other cheek when I see hypocrisy.

by Anonymousreply 5505/04/2012

You guys are great. I expected 6 responses or so. Honestly, Shirley MacClaine's performance is wonderful but my god I found her beyond annoying in that acceptance speech (more so after seeing Testament)

She knew it was hers, she felt she deserved it, and I know Terms was hugely popular (and I like it very much) but she is annoying in that Julia Roberts vein I mentioned above.

I really don't see the range in her role- and I agree that Streep was just as deserving.

I now watched Testament on Youtube (thanks for mentioning, I had no idea).

It really stays with you. It is kind of dumb but some of the most fun I have had getting older is discovering forgotten films.. Altman's 3 Women, Testament, Shampoo... It is my lame hobby.

by Anonymousreply 5605/04/2012

R50, definitely right about the body language for Streep. It's phenomenal. The same thing happens most remarkably in the Bridges of Madison County.

Some theories about this to discuss, perhaps, that applies to Alexander as well?

For Streep, this came on the heels of Sophie's Choice and the French Lieutenant's Woman, so those "transformations" were seen as more challenging but because this was "white trash" it wasn't considered "as hard" - plus she had just won the year before. But for me, where many of her transformation seems cold and technical, you not only totally buy her as a redneck within minutes of her screen time, the emotions seem more raw as well.

For Alexander, she was well known for stronger, more transformative character work, like playing Eleanor Roosevelt (Emmy nominated) or Alma Rose, a concentration camp musician, for which she won her first Emmy. And for her more earthy, sensual work, like in the Great White Hope, her first Oscar nomination.

Her next three Oscar noms, including for Testament, were for understated work. She didn't have a prayer...

by Anonymousreply 5705/04/2012

{R7], what Testament dog scene? I don't remember any pet except the stray cat that the teenage daughter wanted to feed. I haven't seen Testament for a while, but when does the dog scene happen?

[R41] The fictional "Hamlin" is not Sunnyvale, which is in Silicon Valley. Hamlin is described as north of San Francisco, and fairly cut off geographically. You can see mountains looming over characters' heads in several scenes. In the movie it is mentioned that Santa Rosa, well to the South of Hamlin, sustained structural damage from the blast and also went silent on the ham radio while Hamlin still has some people up and moving around. Santa Rosa is 55 miles North of SF.

In his second-to-last answering-machine message, the dad says he's hoping to leave San Francisco at 3:30pm and hopes to be home by 5:00pm. He's commuting an hour and a half each way to the City, probably as fast as he can get away with. To me that means Hamlin must be well over 100 miles from SF.

Finally, there's a decent pause between the double-flash bright light and the arrival of the shock waves. The longer the interval beween the light and arrival of the shock wave, the further you are from the blast.

The time span of the whole movie is only two months. The mom wants to discuss Brad's 13th birthday present in bed with the dad the night before the blast, and the dad complains that Brad's birthday is still two months away. The last scene in the movie (before the flashback) is the mom, Brad, and Hiroshi celebrating Brad's birthday with three graham crackers topped with the last three blobs of peanut butter and three birthday candles. They're among the last survivors, if not the very last survivors, of the entire town of Hamlin. At one point I think the mom writes in her journal that over 1,300 people had died by day eleven. So after two months there's hardly anyone left alive. There isn't time for people to completely exhaust food supplies or witness nuclear winter.

I also didn't understand the comments about the movie not showing graphic damage to the town and the people. The people get thinner, more dazed, and more sick-looking as the movie progresses. Plants die, trees die, the grass dies, and the air gets dustier and dirtier-looking (fallout). The light dims slowly throughout the movie. Trash and rubble pile up everywhere, not to mention the stacks of bodies being burned by the ever-fewer survivors.

by Anonymousreply 5805/05/2012

"Julie Walters in Ed-u-ca-ting REEta!"

by Anonymousreply 5905/05/2012

Frankly Shirley was so entitled in her speech, that I wish Streep would have won!

by Anonymousreply 6005/06/2012

[quote]Honestly, Shirley MacClaine's performance is wonderful but my god I found her beyond annoying in that acceptance speech (more so after seeing Testament)...I really don't see the range in her role- and I agree that Streep was just as deserving.

You're NOW judging her performance based on her Oscar Speech. Sorry but the Oscars are based on performances seen in a theater. How the Hell can you say you saw no range. The movie was a smash. In packed movie theaters Shirley MacClaine produced huge laughs, sometimes without saying a word, such as just walking in the restaurant after the beach car ride, then tears with her statement of not realizing how much it could hurt. She took Aurora from a glamorous Texas matron to a heartbroken Mother living in a motel, complete devoid of vanity. I managed a movie theater and stood in the back of many performances and watched one of the five greatest performances by an actress.

Now "Testament" is a great film and it does have a TV movie feel simply because it WAS made for TV. But as with James Earl Jones in "The Man", a TV Movie Of The Week about the first black President made in 1972, someone at Paramount fought and got it theatrically released.

by Anonymousreply 6105/06/2012

"That 1984 BBC TV drama "Threads" was a much more accurate and devastating portrayal of a nuclear attack."

I've watched THREADS. While it's good and terrifying, I would not say it's a more accurate portrayal.

The main character manages to give birth to a healthy newborn girl despite being in the center of the attack? Nevermind that she just squats down in the back of some alley and drops the kid out like it's nothing.

Plus for all of the main characters to be so aloof in the face of such devastating news was a little far fetched. They knew for days that a severe attack was a posibility yet still went with their plans or ignored the news altogether.

by Anonymousreply 6205/06/2012

[quote]The main character manages to give birth to a healthy newborn girl despite being in the center of the attack? Nevermind that she just squats down in the back of some alley and drops the kid out like it's nothing.

Yeah -- that baby was okay, but remember the baby's baby?

[quote]Plus for all of the main characters to be so aloof in the face of such devastating news was a little far fetched. They knew for days that a severe attack was a posibility yet still went with their plans or ignored the news altogether.

Classic Brits -- that what they do.

by Anonymousreply 6305/06/2012

The dad was sort of a dick, and a bit too rough on his oldest son.

Still, the wife liked him.

by Anonymousreply 6405/06/2012

"Nobody ever cried in pain before they died. And the town of Hamlin looks fine -- there are trees and grass and unbroken roadways. How could that be after there was a prolonged nuclear flash? The family huddles on the living room floor as a blinding series of flashes take place. But not a window is broken, nothing has melted, nobody has gone blind."

Maybe people DID go blind, and cry in pain and have skin sores and die in agony. It's just not shown onscreen. That's not what this movie is about. And as for the destruction...well, everybody's used to seeing everything completely wiped out and destroyed in movies about nucleur destruction. But who's to say what a town will look like after bombs have exploded in the general area? I think it's plausible that not everything would be melted and broken and wiped out, at least not immediately. The town in the movie is obviously not as badly hit as other areas.

"A few seconds showing a mute Lukas Haas being bathed of what appears to be blood stands in for radiation sickness. How convenient for mom that her son is suck for a few seconds before he dies. Her daughter simply died. One day she was there, asking mom questions. The next scene she is in shows her wrapped in bed sheets. That's pretty convenient. The neighbor's kid, we are told, simply curled up into a ball and died. That was nice of him. I guess he didn't want to cause a rumpus by painfully bleeding out since Jane Alexander had been nice enough to take him in. Mom has radiation sickness too, but she only pukes once, pulls out a few strands of hair and marshalls on, taking care of everyone else. The oldest son gets dark circles under his eyes and breathes heavily while bicycling up a hill. Otherwise, he's ok."

What do you think the movie should have done, shown the children in prolonged, agonized suffering before they died? Yes, I guess that's what you would have liked. The suffering is IMPLIED, not rubbed in the viewer's face. The children sickened and died, but the movie in its subtlety and humanity didn't subject the viewer to the horrors of seeing children dying horribly. The movie was ghastly enough without having to actually see the children die.

by Anonymousreply 6505/09/2012

Some comments about "Testament":

When "Testament" played the Telluride Film Festival in September 1983, Roger Ebert reported that it was “so painful, frightening and yet plausible that it left people shaken.”

One critic said "The Day After" utilized what was at that time cutting edge special effects and makeup to dramatize the effects of nuclear war, but only ended up vaporizing its plausibility in the process. "Testament" features not a single scene of destruction, but builds psychological and emotional horror few films sustain at this level."

“Littman must also be congratulated for not resorting to grandstanding gimmicks or overblown idealism to make her case. An obvious advocate for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, she lets the truth, not some misapplied special effect, prove her point. Her greatest achievement comes in the first 15 minutes of the movie, where she manages to capture the world of the Wetherbys in all its casual, collective elements,” writes Bill Gibron at DVD Talk.

by Anonymousreply 6605/09/2012

I am Hiroshi! I am last survivor. I ate cat, ok? No fishing anymore, fish all dead and rot away! Ok, let's go!

by Anonymousreply 6705/17/2012

That Fukushima nuclear reactor thread is making me think of TESTAMENT more and more. My God, there's been a report out today of beach rocks exploding into flames in California...Jesus!

by Anonymousreply 6805/17/2012

Testament really does hold up well in light of this Japan disaster (which is incredibly being swept under the rug- it fucks my mind up, how this is being covered up)..

by Anonymousreply 6905/19/2012

A lot of the damage was quick, but the most horrifying came on very slowly...

by Anonymousreply 7005/19/2012

 

by Anonymousreply 7102/16/2013

Most of you people who posted on this thread are COMPLETE FUCKING ASSHOLES!

This thread is SUPPOSED to be about "Testament" [and, subsequently, other nuclear-themed films as well], not fucking babbling about goddamn actresses in other fucking films!

Sometimes I hate you fucking cunts soooo much, I swear to fucking god.

by Anonymousreply 7202/16/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.