A History of Violence, what are people thinking?

POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 06:21
VIEWED: 2488
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, October 10, 2005 11:41 PM

Very rarely to I come out of a theater feeling like I’ve just wasted two hours of my life. I’ve seen some pretty bad movies and until now I’ve always been able to pick out things that made me feel that it wasn’t a total waste. Note that I said, “Things,” in the plural sense.

On TV sometimes I watch a useless movie, but never before have I made the mistake of going to one in theaters. The only thing that kept me in there was the hope that something was just around the corner that would make it worthwhile. The only skill I saw represented in the movie was that it constantly kept me believing that something was coming, some kind of dialogue or sensible action, or plot, or … anything.

In spite of no reason to believe that there would be anything worthy of my time I had the feeling that there would be, the belief that there had to be a reason it had looked compelling in the trailers beyond clever editing.

I was let down. Going out of the theater I heard a lot of people saying the same thing. I can’t say everyone did, I did not take a survey and my hearing isn’t that good, but I can say that no one showed any outward signs of liking it and everyone I could hear said only things that were distinctly uncomplimentary.

I walked out of there feeling like I could have done anything and felt better about my time spent. That has not changed now that I’ve had time to think about it. I had a tooth drilled a few days ago and I would have preferred that, at least I know that there is some purpose, some positive outcome.

It might sound like I hate the movie, I don’t. I really don’t care about it, what I do care about is making sense of it. Why do people go to see it? I’ve heard it was doing well and I thought that to do well it has to have repeat viewing, so where do the repeat viewers come from?

If anyone here liked it can you explain it to me? I can not think of one redeeming quality, and I can usually pull several redeeming qualities out of b-movie crap where the actors sound like robots (when they aren’t supposed to) the effects look like something that I can’t really describe but is not at all effective, and the plot doesn’t really exist.

-

This has nothing to do with Serenity being out, yes I would have preferred to go to it, but I also would have preferred to go to just about anything else. I can’t think of a movie that I would like to go to less and that includes movies that I do hate. At least when I hate something it means it had enough quality to provoke an emotional response.

The only thing the movie gave to me was a feeling I know only from staring at a wall for hours because of “borderline clinical depression.” I don’t have that anymore, in fact I’ve been having the best few months of my life when it comes to mood for no apparent reason (this predates Serenity so no one try to fit that in.) Basically everything that has happened I’ve enjoyed, or found some part of it that I enjoyed.

Now this, I see a movie that provokes a feeling of nothing, it’s like nothing happened, something I can neither like nor hate, and something I totally fail to understand. I need to understand, its what I do, I try to find meaning. Right now I can’t, I can’t figure out why people made it, I can’t figure out why people acted in it, I can’t figure out why someone wrote it, and I can’t figure out why people would go back for a second helping.

I’ve got no ground to start on, nothing to latch onto and say, “Well people would like this part so they might also like…” I can’t even explain what I’m feeling now, I wish it were anger, that’s easy to deal with, you just remind yourself it was just a movie. I’m perplexed, I don’t think that’s an emotional state, but that is all that I feel.

-
-

Mostly unimportant side notes:
If someone out there wants to say, "You should have gone to Serenity," I agree, but if they say it for monetary reasons I’d like to point out that this wasn’t my money. I decided to go, so it was my fault that I wasted my time, but when someone offers to take me to a movie I thi

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:57 AM

SPOILER

Select to view spoiler:

The movie would have been far more effective if "Tom" really WAS a victim of mistaken indentity. With that, they could have gone in a lot of different directions: Tom appeals to the sheriff, they (and the town) get caught up in mob retribution, the town does (or doesn't) believe that Tom is who he says it is, the town does (or doesn't) stand behind Tom; they find a way (or not) to resolve the problem with the mob w/o incurring retribution etc. Then they could have explored violence as a process separate from the intentions characters. Instead, they turned "Tom" into some sort of expert superhero.

It really was a waste of time and money. But, there have been worse! This was just a waste, others movies left a toxic mental residue!

Please don't think they give a shit.

ZEEK

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:40 PM

I totally agree. That movie had no redeeming qualities. If I wouldn't have had to trip over like 10 people to get out I would have walked out of the movie. So many times I was just sitting there wanting to scream. I felt anger. I know you didn't but wasting 2 hours and $$$ when I could have been doing something better drives me up the wall. The movie had such a slow pace they even filmed the actors yawning!! The movie was just a testiment to the trash that hollywood is churning out these days. "Let's make a trailer that paints an interesting tail...hire a relatively known actor...release the movie and run like bunnies".

R1Z

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:45 PM

Quote:
“I wish they had cut the gratuitous sex and added a plot.”

Plots are good. Many of my favorite movies have plots.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

PATMAN

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:02 PM

I found this film to be a head-scratcher. How acceptable is violence? I guess that's the point, but my problem was that stupidity is the driving force of the drama. Stupid people pushing around "docile" people until docile people react with violence and show a scary natural acumen for such violence.

What's the difference between stupid people inciting violence and docile people returning in kind with violence? Does it matter? Of course, self-preservation is primarily all you need to make it acceptable. Deep down, every one of us has the propensity for violence, how far do we need to be pushed to engage in it? Violence isn't always bad, it's a means to an end. It's never the best option but it's always an option. Some people exhaust the options before resorting to violence, others use it as a primary option.

I know there are people who will take difference positions on the "sex on the stairwell" scene, but I take the negative view, even though it may have ended up "consensual", it started out rather distasteful and progressed and ended in the same fashion for me. But who was the victim here? At times, I think it was the viewers.

I thought the 3rd act was just more stupidity on display, which undermined whatever point Cronenberg was trying to make.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of C+.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Quote:
“I wish they had cut the gratuitous sex and added a plot.”

Plots are good. Many of my favorite movies have plots.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

A plot? I only watch modern Hollywood films, and I'm sure I haven't come across one of these. A plot, ludicrous!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

HERO

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:38 PM

How come nobody is defending gratuitous sex?

Personally I think a great movie combines three elements sex, violence, and product placement.

As long as you have a sufficient amount of these three things, you should at least break even.

H

RELFEXIVE

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:39 PM

"Understated and low-key" is how I would describe it. No explosions, car chases, massive gunfights or witty one-liners. Nice change, that. And often tense, as you never really knew how each confrontation would turn out.

"My God - you're like a trained ape. Without the training."
"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all..."
I know the secret.
http://www.theshadowdepository.co.uk/index.htm

ZEEK

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:23 PM

Never knew how each confrontation would turn out?

You mean you didn't see the kid using the shotgun coming a mile away? You didn't know that every "good" guy would live and the "bad" guys were gonna die? This movie was so predictable they should have just told us the general plot with ticket purchase and then say "you can figure out the rest".

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
How come nobody is defending gratuitous sex?

Personally I think a great movie combines three elements sex, violence, and product placement.

As long as you have a sufficient amount of these three things, you should at least break even.

H

How's this Hero?

"But Butch, can't we just make love again? Must you go and fight the baron now?"
"I'm sorry baby, but I must ram this large metal spike through his heart! Have this Pepsi, it's the drink of champions."
"Oh but Butch, must you go now? Maybe your watch is fast?"
"No chance! it's a Casio G-Shock. They're never wrong, and always there when you need them!"

I'm thinking B/W, film noir...
Oh, Sin City has already been done... I'll have to think about that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE