Depraved


That one word, describes this trash and is almost as much as I should bother saying about it. But I'll say just a little more.

Stopped watching about 2/3rds of the way through--I'd had enough. Torture porn, whatever you want to call it but I'll tell you this is trash plain and simple.

Also whether you somehow like garbage like this or not, this is NOT horror. There's nothing scary or even remotely scary about it. I'm not sure how someone would like this "movie" but even if you're a sicko that does, it's still NOT a horror film.

This is one of the very few films I've had to rate a 1/10 on IMDb. It's not that it's bad, it's that it never should have been made in the first place. Even if a film is downright terrible I give it a 2. Films like this though have no business being filmed. Wish I could unwatch and recommend you do not watch. Don't waste even a minute of your time on this. Ugh.

reply

It's nice to see that you rate films based on their quality... oh wait...

The practice of gluing the performances of two different actors together needs to come to an end.

reply

That makes absolutely no sense at all. There is ZERO quality here...ZEE ROH.

And where did I glue performances of any actors together? I didn't even mention the performers of this or any other film in what I said. What needs to end is nonsense posts like yours.

reply

There is 'ZERO' quality? That makes no sense at all.

You're not even rating the film based of any of parts that make up a film (acting, writing, cinematography and so on). You're basing your score purely off the fact that you personally don't like the content of the film.

That is something which needs to stop.


The practice of gluing the performances of two different actors together needs to come to an end.

reply

I'll tell you what "needs to stop". It's sickos like you and the film makers here that like this kind of sick garbage, that's what.

Now I have no more time or patience for this horse banana bullcrap of yours. You can admit the sicko you are or not, I couldn't care less; because, I know exactly what kind of people that like this garbage are.

The end and goodbye.

reply

I like how you responded to my points. Oh, wait...


The practice of gluing the performances of two different actors together needs to come to an end.

reply

The end and goodbye.


You created a topic on a board specifically for this film.

You got on a high horse denigrating it for all the issues you had.

Someone comes in and tries to address your very, very, very, VERY subjective points and not only do you not respond, you think "The end and goodbye." is a valid response?

Are you 2? Do you enjoy only hearing yourself talk?

Feel free to come on the IMDB boards and vent your opinion, but if you're going to be an obstinate twerp when someone tried to discuss what you've said, then it simply says more about you as a person.

You also sound incredibly out of touch. Imagine all the movies that you enjoy that your parents would think were depraved.

YOU RATED FIGHT CLUB AN 8

Are you absolutely kidding me?

You have to be kidding me.

Scream is an 8, Seven an 8, all the Final Destination films between a 7 and 8. I guarantee someone a generation or two before you would have considered those films as much, or more, "garbage" than you've considered this film.

I think you need to, well, think before you post. You're completely in your right to have this opinion about the film, but think about the context of what you're saying. Use some common sense.

reply

Said perfectly. I hate entitled morons that can't have intelligent discussions.

reply

The movie did say it's for adults only and the way your talking to people on this thread makes me think your in your early teens. Maybe your parents shouldn't let you watch such films!

reply

I understand how you feel. It was an horrific film. Mark Kermode, the most famous film critic in the UK, almost walked out of the screening. But movies are not only for entertainment.

reply

True OP, just ignore the sheep fans.

reply

And who exactly made you the standard-setter?

If you're going to self-appoint, you need to be ready to defend why "quality" matters if the content is past some threshold level of depravity. You also need to go somewhere quiet and figure out why whether somebody "likes the content of a film" is not the sole legitimate area of concern or inquiry regarding a film's content. That is, you can't actually defend why "liking versus not liking" is the only dimension of content that matters.

Want examples? Or are you already smart enough to think of some of the examples where no rational person would even try to defend that standard?

reply

the whole point of the film is revealed in the very end. if you didn't watch the ending than you missed the whole point

reply

I know how this trash ends because the people still watching the film after I left the room (one of which saw it already, the loser sicko who recommended it) told me; and I read about it too.

Doesn't change a thing. This is garbage plain and simple. The end.

reply

but you missed the best part when she was skinned alive and left without her skin. it was a nice special effect

reply

Panties = in a wad?

WHO DAT!

reply

1) Martyrs IS a horror film. If you didn't find any of the scenes or situations in the movie as potentially terrifying, I suggest you seek out a therapist.

2) I love people that throw around the phrase "torture porn" when they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

...and last but not least

3) You are an idiot, plain and simple.

reply

1. There's nothing scary about it. Absolutely nothing. There's some lame jump scares with the invisible demon you know is invisible from the getgo but that's it.

2. Sure.

3. Indeed. Sickos tend to think that don't they? That those that don't enjoy this kind of sicko filth are "idiots". Twisted, but hey the minds of the scum of society tends to go that way doesn't it?

reply

grow up! the end.

reply

You do realise that an horror movie doesn't have to be "scary" as you put it, it has to be horrific, to show you a nightmarish world. By that standard, I think this movie really worked on you since it was horrific enough to make you leave before the end because you couldn't stand it.
I really liked Martyrs because it was unlike anything I've seen before. You say it's torture porn, but it's the exact opposite. A torture porn is a movie where the audience is waiting for the next gore scene because it's entertaining and fun. Here, you're almost victim of the violence as an audience, it's unpleasant and really harsh, and therefor you feel the pain of the protagonists. I also liked the fact that this movie dares to be unpleasant, to put the audience in an unconfortable positon, which is something you don't see that often in modern horror movies (it reminded me a little bit of hellraiser in that aspect).

reply

"Daring to be unpleasant" is not a cinematic accomplishment, Charles.

reply

Of course it is, whatever your name is, because it's not as easy as it seems.
A movie doesn't have to be joyfull and pleasant, it's just easier to please the crowd that way. Martyr (successfully) tried something different, and it is a cinematic accomplishment.

reply

All you have to do is throw a bunch of horrific violence together with repulsively sick characters and boom, you have an unpleasant film. That's not anything brilliant. A film that's provocative on another level, that inspires thought instead of revulsion, is something else.

reply

"There's some lame jump scares with the invisible demon you know is invisible from the getgo but that's it."

That wasn't a demon, it was a person that the character had seen while she was held captive as a child and had been haunted for years by the fact that she couldn't help her...that was a form of psychological horror.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++


reply

i pleasure myself to this film daily

reply

Just thought I'd comment on a few things here.
1. We obviously have different definitions of the word 'scary'. I'd define it as 'disturbing' as opposed to 'full of jump scares'. As you clearly were disturbed by this film, then I (and I'm sure the majority of people) would suppose that you DID find it scary. Also, doesn't the word 'horror' imply that something is disturbing/horrifying? Hence this IS a horror film as it meets the criteria of being horrifying.
And it's not an 'invisible demon', it's a psychological manifestation of Lucie's guilt for leaving behind the woman who was being tortured with her. You knew it was an invisible demon from the get-go, did you?

2. Schall1991 is right about the misuse (and often the unnecessary overuse) of the term 'torture-porn'. That term originated in accordance with the idea that an audience was meant to acquire excitement from human torture and suffering, through comparing this to the way in which pornography would excite in an individual. This film is not meant to be something you sit down and watch with popcorn in your hand whilst laughing at cliched jump scares. It was meant to disturb viewers through the emotional suffering it presents. I could name plenty more films containing more gore than 'Martyrs'. It's is not disturbing because of gore, yet because of the emotional suffering we witness the protagonists endure. And by doing so, we are invited to dare to identify with, relate to and understand the suffering of both Anna and Lucie,
Hence this film does not fall under the torture-porn category as unlike the 'Hostel' and 'Saw' films, we aren't meant to be enjoying the torture we witness.

3. Can people stop calling others 'sickos' after they couldn't handle a film. Perhaps before you watch them, consider that horror films are often disturbing, as they are meant to be, and might juuuuust possibly be violent (who would've thought?). Or alternatively, listen to your parents and don't watch violent films!

Sorry to be rude, but stop. Come on mate.

reply

Oh please abas, who says we're supposed to enjoy the violence in Saw? That film at least has a point. This is just sick, twisted exhibitionist crap.

reply

I should've referred to the sequels, as the first one doesn't focus on the torture scenes. The sequels however, have millions of different 'traps' and weird torture methods with buckets of gore, clearly intended for the entertainment of the audience. The saw franchise is KNOWN for having popularised the term 'torture-porn'.

I don't mean to be rude, but didn't you hear about Martyrs' reputation of being disturbing before you watched it? If you find these kind of films to be too 'sick' , then its best to not watch them. I used to hate disturbing films and had the attitude that they're all sick. But since then I've watched a fair bit of horror and have thus become desensitised. So it's probably just a matter of being able to look past the violence and not being overwhelmed by the disturbing imagery.

But really, this film could have been much worse in terms of being gratuitous, yet it wasn't. Think about it. It's not that graphic compared to other horror films. Hence by the director being able to create an unsettling (and fairly saddenning) film without cliches, millions of jump scares or buckets of gore, he did a pretty good job in my opinion.

One other thing I want to add is that approximately half of the 60000 people who rated this film gave it an 8 or more, so the idea that everybody who likes this film is sick would mean that we've found a collection of 30000 sick people on IMDb (which is rather unlikely in my opinion). So my point is, please stop complaining that this film, or other horror films, are sick/too violent. It's almost like watching a comedy and complaining about how it had humour in it. Again, there's nothing gratuitously abhorrent in this film, anyway.

reply

Oh gross, that's what I used to think about the Saw movies, then I thought I was wrong. Well, I was wrong that the first one was pointless, but apparently not about the others, which I know DID get worse and worse.

"I don't mean to be rude, but didn't you hear about Martyrs' reputation of being disturbing before you watched it?"

You haven't been rude at all, especially considering how strong my own words were. But I didn't watch the film at all; I was just horrified by the sick gore I read about in it.

"Think about it. It's not that graphic compared to other horror films."

How many do you know show people being flayed, of all things?

I can't do as you asked and not complain about too much violence, because there is too much and it is greatly troubling how numb people seem to be getting to it. The film The Witch had a baby be sacrificed; several episodes of Masters of Horror had over-the-top things occur in episodes ALREADY plenty violent and provocative, like a baby being killed yet again in a horrible way and a man slaughtering a cat or a little girl being torn into by a cannibal. There ARE films that go way too far and violence/disturbing content do not determine a good film alone. Sometimes they do just the opposite.

reply

"You haven't been rude at all, especially considering how strong my own words were"

Well thank you for responding maturely also. I was a little worried because your original reply was a little intimidating.
"I didn't watch the film at all; I was just horrified by the sick gore I read about in it"

This is a problem. Since you haven't seen the film, you don't know that the supposedly-graphic skinning scene is only implied off-screen. We do LATER see Anna without skin, yet she isn't shown to be writhing in agony or anything. You also don't realise that this film doesn't focus on the gore, as the skinning scene is less than a minute long and does not include any unpleasant sound effects. However, torture-porn films do this, in order to emphasise the disgust of the gore. Martyrs however, features little gore overall.
Anyway, my point here is, isn't it a bit weird to judge the film like this when you haven't seen it? Then again, I wouldn't recommend you go and watch it, as your attitudes toward disturbing films suggest you'd hate it and wouldn't be able to see past the violence.
"How many do you know show people being flayed, of all things?"

Again, there was little gore in this film. Consider films such as the last few Saw movies even. THEY have more gore than Martyrs. Hostel II showed a live woman being hung up-side-down whilst another woman cut her back to bathe in her blood, as well as various other scenes of pointless sick gore scenarios. Then there's movies like A Serbian Film or The Human Centipede II. Although I haven't seen the former, I know that both movies rely purely on abbhorrency and shock in order to create disgust. Martyrs however, is disturbing mainly because of the themes portrayed. Those who find it disturbing always cite the sequence in which Anna is kept in the basement as the most disturbing part of the film. This sequence has no gore and the only form of violence we see are beatings. This part of the film was also so, so saddenning to me. Hence the director didn't create an unpleasant film that relies on shock and disgust, as Martyrs focuses on mental suffering more than physical pain.
"There ARE films that go way too far and violence/disturbing content do not determine a good film alone. Sometimes they do just the opposite."

I never said that violence/disturbing content alone determine whether a film is good and would never say that because it's absurd. And indeed, often those things do achieve the opposite effect. However, whether you like it or not, horror films will always be violent. You possibly need to extend your boundaries a little bit. And yes, people are getting numb to violence, but they're not going to go on a masscare and turn into psychopaths because of a film.

Sorry to go on so much too. I always want to cover a lot of things.

reply

You should have watched it until the end.

It becomes PURE horror.

reply

its one of the few movies i rated 10/10 here on imd. this is a masterpiece!

reply

Martyrs is a disturbing film, it's supposed to be.
having said that, that doesn't mean it's not a well acted and directed film.

It's funny how the OP said it's not horror yet they seem to be horrified by it, clearly the film had an impact on you , not one you wanted but it effected your mood and stayed in your mind enough to write this post, you say there is nothing scary about it and again ironically you appear to be quite disturbed by it's content.

after watching it myself i felt extremely disturbed and upset, nothing in the film was pleasant to view but i had to respect the fact that an idea that came out of someones imagination could do that to me, that's where the skill is in this form of film making, or any other really.

to illicit an emotive response, personally i wouldn't want to watch it again but i appreciate why someone made it and i certainly don't think anyone sick for watching it nor do i cast that judgement on the people involved in it's production.

horror is meant in all senses of the word to horrify, to create a feeling of unease, tension, and ultimately fear, this film definitely does that wether you enjoyed viewing it or not.

reply

I think it's obvious to most the real reason you have a problem with this film is it brings to light aspects of the world and human condition which you would rather not acknowledge, i.e. would rather be kept in the dark.

reply

Joop, how normal would you consider the crap in this movie? Nothing remotely about what happens is likely, common, or even realistic. Movies that address domestic violence, rape, foster child abuse in realistic and professional fashion-those are movies that bring light to the human condition. Not strings of consciousness junk that dredge up every bizarre kind of gore their demented creators can conceive of.

reply

i think this movie was disturbing you heavily.. this is why you quit watching almost at the end (where the real torture porn begins). for me this shows the movie actually did a good job inducing so much horror in you taht you coudnt take it any longer:)

reply