I'm getting this movie and I usually browse through it's boards here, and it's safe to say, I never seen a board with so much hatred towards the movie.
I'm confused, since it has very good critics.
[deleted]
It's quite simple. People saw such high rating on imdb and expected a good movie. Instead they got something different. People obviously are angry and venting their frustrations after being fooled into watching this garbage.
share[deleted]
It's quite simple. People saw such high rating on imdb and expected a good movie. Instead they got something different. People obviously are angry and venting their frustrations after being fooled into watching this garbage.Sometimes this is true. Sometimes there is a need to find the reasons why things happen the way that they do and in that search for the answers some stones need to be turned over, but this practice causes stress to the ones that like the stones the way they are.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Agreed. Makes you wonder if there are two different edits of this movie out there. We seemed to have watched the bad one. LOL
shareIn what way is it garbage? It seemed like an excellent movie.
shareit's not a good movie, that's why they hate it... serious lack of violence in a movie with violence in the title... terrible "sex scenes", shouldn't want sex scenes in a movie anyway (that's why there is porn) also, the sex scenes in this were worse than any others i've seen... and last, the story was boring and is done better in other movies... the best part was the bullet hole in the guy's face... sad...
shareIt is a great movie.
shareIt is, hitchhikerchip - it most definitely is.
shareAgreed, very good film.
Cool YouTube Videos
http://www.youtube.com/SpartanHoplite47
Well said. I just watched this movie and god, where do I start? I found the editing to be really slow, as in there was NO flow. I found the dialogue was very unrealistic, not natural at all. His wife freaks out on him when she knows nothing about his past, and they have revenge sex on the stairs? His brother not just blowing his head off when he had the chance? The plot points that really don't connect (his brother berates another thug for trying to help a dead one when Joey could come through the door at any second? It's things like this that are non-sensical). We never know anything about the main characters' actual past. The ending seemed so forced. This whole movie from start to finish really had NOTHING for me. Others can enjoy it, that's fine. Personally, I thought it was absolutely terrible.
Currently breaking the first two rules of fight club.
That was not revenge sex. She was turned on by him being somebody more exciting than he really was. Nothing to do with revenge. You didn't get it.
shareWe never know anything about the main characters' actual past
serious lack of violence in a movie with violence in the title
I really liked this movie. I put an 8/10 on the rating, just watched it for the second time.
There is a "this movie sucks" thread for just about every movie on IMDB. People who like the movie post in it, and it is bumped to the top.
http://www.coolblaster.blogspot.com/
"it's not a good movie, that's why they hate it... serious lack of violence in a movie with violence in the title... terrible "sex scenes", shouldn't want sex scenes in a movie anyway (that's why there is porn) also, the sex scenes in this were worse than any others i've seen... and last, the story was boring and is done better in other movies... the best part was the bullet hole in the guy's face... sad..."
Please list more movies that you hate, as I suspect I would like to see them.
Lol, too bad he never listed them.
I understand. Thank you for telling me. -The masked bandit
... serious lack of violence in a movie with violence in the title...
[deleted]
Are you trolling? It looks like you're trolling. The way you phrased your criticism just now? It *definitely* looks like you're trolling.
Then again, what self-respecting troll ever ADMITS to someone that he's trolling?
I should've known better than to ask.
Ok if you want great sex scenes in a movie why not go for porno?
The movie was just fine.
Well, the movie is provocative, so some negativity and criticism should be expected. However, I'm not even sure what exactly you're talking about here, since I'm not really seeing any disproportionately huge amount of hatred on this board.
I never seen a board with so much hatred towards the movie.Seriously? What other boards have you been to, then? And what's your definition of "hatred" for that matter? share
The only provocative thing I encountered in the films brief visit to my screen on both occasions was a provocation to remove it from my television.
It isn't provocative to show something shocking, that you see coming a mile away. Eastern promises was just as bad. What is about to be so 'shocking' and 'provocative' is telegraphed by the clumsy direction leaving it flaccid.
The 'badness' of acting/direction, surrealism, and clunkiness of both films only provoked my deciding a cup of tea, and something else to wash the bad taste out was the best option.
Good film, very good.
Solid 8/10 for me.
But I can understand someone not liking it and giving it say a 6 or 7.
I watched this film again this past week. Still very solid film, I rate it my second favorite of the decade. The acting, editing, pacing, sound and cinematography are all excellent. I find the story to be an engrossing examination of the existential dynamic between ways of being and meaning.
I am not sure who would understand the film and still not like it, and frankly have not seen anyone make a compelling case against the film here who truly seemed to understand it.
Okay, I will bite. What is your favorite film, because that would say a lot about you or is that too private a question to ask?
And are you saying that not one of the people that have given AHOV less than seven stars on IMDB understands the film. Boy, is that a whopper of a tale!
Well, understand it the way I do, no. I have not seen anyone come close to that understanding who dislikes it.
The haters get caught up in small stuff and miss the point of the film. They complain about baseball uniforms and whether the violent scenes are realistic.
Ever see The Maltese Falcon? Sam Spade's partner gets shot and rolls down a hill. No blood, no wound, no gun shown... It's dark, and all we see next at the scene is the police taking the body out. Realistic? Well, if all you saw was in the dark from the camera's perspective, I guess you wouldn't see more than was shown, but if you wanted to complain about it, you certainly could come up with something.
Anyway your question is inaptly presented. My favorite film of all time is Lawrence of Arabia. But I was referring to the 2001-2010 decade. My favorite film of that decade was Lost in Translation.
Thanks for the adding bonus of know what your all time favorite movie was.
You did say decade though and I wasn’t referring to anything other than that. Your favorite movie I don’t remember very well and I am not certain if I ever saw it all the way through. Your favorite movie for the decade let me say without really getting into it that I like A History of Violence better. Much much better.
Not seeing a film means you neither got it nor didn't get it. You didn't watch it. Duh.
I am forced to conclude I find exchanging posts with you to be unrewarding in any sense.
Lawrence of Arabia: I saw it once when I was seven – what is your problem? You don’t get movies you enjoy them. They are not cross word puzzles or a chess game. You can’t checkmate a movie.
Lost in Translation: That has got to be the worst movie I can remember seeing and its director I can safely say that I have never like anything she as ever done – does that clarify things for you – it is no wonder why we don’t see things eye to eye.
How about: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011) - 6.9
That film has got to be better than
Lost in Translation (2003) 7.8
or
History of Violence (2005) 7.6
But according to IMDB that is not the case. I don’t know who are the ones that are rating the movies on IMDB? I know I don’t rate movies here (I know they are weighted). Sometimes I rate movies on the parent (Amazon) site and I do so on Netflix. I trust both Amazon and Netflix before I would trust IMDB.
Max,
You add nothing here. Time to run along now.
I did add something. I always add something. You just don't like it. Why don't you move along. You are the one who has added nothing for the second time.
Better yet: why don't you try chasing me away with a stick?
I bet that would work!
You're the first person I've ever put on ignore here. You're the most annoying, rambling, unlikeable character I've met online.
Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.
I bet if you asked and filmmaker or writer (at least), a movie is to be "gotten" and not just enjoyed.
Is this to be an empathy test?
"A movie is to be "gotten" and not just enjoyed".
If you mean "gotten" on an intellectual level than not necessarily. Or always. Certainly Robert Altman, for one instance, did not think so.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
As far as ranking films of that decade I would have to say it would be:
10. Oldboy
9. Royal Tenenbaums
8. Punch-Drunk Love
7. The Dark Knight
6. Pan's Labyrinth
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
4. Lost in Translation
3. A History of Violence
2. There Will be Blood
1. No Country for Old Men
wouldn't be my top 10, but everything there would make the top 50 (as long as you're talking about Korean Old Boy and not the US abortion), solid list
share"I'm getting this movie and I usually browse through it's boards here, and it's safe to say, I never seen a board with so much hatred towards the movie."
This is an excellent film, but it is not one that people who are enthusiastic about the socio-cultural, political, and moral/"ethical" basis of contemporary American (and Western) society are apt to enjoy. I'm surprised critics actually liked it, in fact. Its an excellent film, but your average American isn't going to like it. It is an assault on their value system. Nazis and fascists love this movie, for example. Communists, Islamists, members of the IRA, and others who are at odds with the prevailing worldview, probably do as well (although I really couldn't say). People who shop at Wal-Mart, and believe this year's electoral contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a meaningful exercise in democratic government, are the sort of people who would tend to hate this film. Which naturally means most people will inevitably hate this film. But so what? Lots of good and great things fail to win popular acclaim.
I consider it something of a minor classic.
A History of Violence is better than:
Lost in Translation (2003)
Marie Antoinette (2006)
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
But you are not the first to say "Classic".
You have an interesting view on who likes this movie.
Caract,
I have no idea what you are talking about, other than that I know you don't know, either.
Kenny,
I'm not surprised that you would miss what he is talking about when you didn't even see those gallon jugs of water in the refrigerator. How many times have you seen this movie and missed them every single time?
On the top shelf were are small water bottles to the left of some aluminum cans. Below the top shelf is a lower shelf and you can plainly see at least two water bottles the same size as the one Sicko Killer #2 is holding in his left hand. They have even the same blue caps.
This is so funny that you, who has seen this film a hundred times, didn’t see it. What else have you been missing?
I saw them, and thought, well he wants fresh cold water, not water that's been in the fridge he doesn't know how long. After all, what self-respecting thug wouldn't go for the fresh rather than the dubious sell-by date water?
I mean, it's like, wow, the guy who played the son was too old! Their ages didn't match!
It's like having women playing male parts in Shakespeare's plays! It's just - wrong!
I'm kidding, max. Lighten up.
Cat,
Yeah, I know what you mean about fresh water. I makes sense filling from the tap. There is no way to know how long that water been in those bottles. Just the other day I had to throw out some old water that had been in the refrigerator too long. Maybe you can fill Kenny in about the water bottles because he didn't see them.
I suppose if you don't have a problem with females playing male roles then you don't care if an actor, who is in his late twenties, plays the part of a teenager when he is almost old enough to have fathered a teenager himself. And I bet you also wouldn't care if a Caucasian played an Afro-American wearing black grease paint either.
And of course there is not a problem with having villains so dark they bleed black ink - killing a little girl to watch her die. Killing a diner full of people for some pocket change. These guys are just too evil, some kind of comic book Doomday that Superman, er, Tom must stop. And Tom does stop them ... doesn't he? And unlike Superman, Tom doesn't die trying.
Even Darth Vader had some good in him.
From the tap? He's filling it from the water cooler! Just how unobservant are you! If you keep water in plastic bottles too long, the chemicals leach from the bottle into the water. So well done for throwing out that water! It could send you all funny!
No, I have no problem with females playing male roles, especially since a number of high profile, high quality Shakespearian productions havedone that. And of course Shakespeare wrote his female roles for males to play.
I have no problem with someone who looks very young playing someone who is young. Fortunately, these days people don't have to wear a sign with their age on it round their necks. Such a barbaric practice, that was.
I would care very much if a black actor was banned from a part traditionally played by someone who's white - so the reverse would also be true. Although hooray, gone is the black greasepaint, so I wouldn't expect them to white up. I have sufficient imagination to be able to look beyond the surface, and see the performance, not the appearance. And recognise that literalism is the death of any creative enterprise.
"Bleed black ink"? From which source did you plagiarise that phrase? Ah, it's a cliche. Thought it might be, but I don't keep up with all neologisms. Possibly not all not-so-neo-logisms, either. He killed a little girl because it was the easiest way forward. He didn't care, and there's no suggestions at all that he did it to watch her die. He did it for purely practical reasons, cos he's just that kind of guy. Bored, bored, bored.
Sadly, oh, so sadly, there are no guys that are "just too evil". Truth exceeds fiction over and over and over again. Just think about the guys in the news at the moment for one sec, and you'll know that Richie and Fogarty are just your average bad guys. Richie isn't even a very good bad guy, just a very unbalanced one.
Tom isn't required to die trying. That would have made him into some kind of hero, and indeed would have turned him into a comic book hero. Cronenberg's far too savvy to put that kind of an ending on the film.
Unlike you I am concerned with who plays a role. In a western I want to see Native Americans as Indians and not some white guys dressed up as Native Americans. And in a civil war picture I want the slaves to be played by black people.
Would you make the white people slaves and the plantation owners black?
And if I watch a romantic-comedy I want a representative of each sex playing their gender. And if the script calls for a teenagers I would like to see a teenager, not someone who obviously looks much older. I guess we are going to have to disagree.
"Bleed black ink"? – plagiarize? That is mine. Do you like it or is it cliché? Can you make up your mind? Do you think I cut and paste my comments from some other source? You cut me deep!
You are right though about the killer taking the easiest way forward, story-wise that was the easiest way to write. Two evil men are needed for Tom to kill and here they are seen killing a little girl for no reason. Then they are shown at Tom’s diner looking like they were going to kill everyone. They knew there was very little money to be had, but did they even look interested in the money? No. Bored? That is is the kind of boredom that is pronounced; “Evil”.
The guys in the news, are you serious? Nothing like this has ever made the news. Diner owner kills serial killers with their own weapon. That story would go international and people wouldn’t stop talking about it until they made it into a movie.
And what is this insight about Richie? How do you have him all figured out or Fogarty for that matter. If it wasn’t for Ed Harris I probably wouldn’t even be on this message board. Talk about a waste of talent. I know they say that there is no such thing as a small role, only small actors… Disappointing.
Didn’t you say that Cronenberg asks the questions, but doesn’t answer any of them? That says it all in a nutshell. You said that he was too savvy to put a comic book ending on his film. Well let me remind you that there wasn’t an ending at all because the film just stopped before it was over. What truly happen to Tom and his family is another question.
"Bleed black ink"?
How did I conjure up this phrase?
I thought that killers and bad guys stereotypically wear black.
And I knew that Hollywood used to use fake black blood while shooting black and white pictures.
Since the killers in AHOV weren’t wearing black hats I said they had black blood, meaning they weren’t even human and literally were some kind of evil monsters. I said “ink” because I thought black ink is what they used for blood in Hollywood during the olden days.
It is the height of irony that I am on the A History of Violence message board and I am being faulted for being unoriginal or at worst stealing someone else’s work.
Tom told Sarah that there were no such things as monsters. He lied.
"Tom told Sarah that there were no such things as monsters. He lied."
Hooray! Possibly inadvertantly and therefore ironically, you've got it!
This is about the "monster" in all of us. That's always been one of Cronenberg's interests, and it's an interest that didn't stop with this film. But he is saying that's reality, that we are all monstrous in our own ways.
I know you'll argue with that, but, IMHO, you'll never see the monstrosity of some of your statements. I'm sure I have my own monstrosity to deal with, too! But that's reality for you ...
Both of you: no.
beer is good
Max, Replying to yourself, really?
I understand. Thank you for telling me. -The masked bandit
Why have the Internet Gods forsaken me with this hapless little post that makes no sense?
123, were you on something when you compose this pearl of wisdom? Are you unaware that I received an email to come here and you have presented me with spam.
If only you could understand…
I knew nothing about it when I saw it, and really like it. I gave it a 9 here.
I guess some people (as simplistic as it sounds) just don't like stuff. It's the whole subjective thing, again. I have a good buddy that I watch a lot of movies with, and we sometimes like the same films a LOT, and other times, disagree completely and think the other person is crazy.
Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.
It is a very good movie although maybe a bit much for most people and also actually too subtle.
So funny that people get so excited about Bello's full frontal..it's supposed to be a married woman in her own house just coming out of the shower...it's would be very weird if she would cover up in front of her husband, like some prissy schoolgirl...
People get so obsessed by these things...also the sex scenes.. it's shows their raw passion and love for each other...I can imagine though that it's doesn't go down well in the US. Maybe they should just stick to the the "Fantastic Four" over there...
The controversy about shows it's actually a good movie...