MovieChat Forums > Cheap Thrills (2014) Discussion > Animal cruelty depicted? how graphic?

Animal cruelty depicted? how graphic?

posted 12 years ago by DisturbedPixie
11 replies | jump to latest

I saw the trailer and it showed a very short shot of what looked like someone preparing to cut off a dog's head.

I don't want to start a debate over animal cruelty vs whatever in fiction films, but I just want to know if it does indeed go in that direction. And if so, how graphic is it?

A suppose another question should be how graphic is any of the violence? I believe the trailer and poster shows a man missing his finger... that could be pretty graphic if fully depicted.

As a horror fan, I've seen my fair share of graphic extreme violence, but I do prefer the hinted at violence over the full shot of a head being slowly sawed off. So if this film is all about the painful slow graphic violence shots, I think I may pass.

Please don't go on to spoil the film, as this is a question that would most interest those that have not seen the film. Just please indicate if this is as graphic or more so than something like Hostel/Hobo with a shotgun/SAW sequels/Evil Dead Remake, and if a dog dies on screen or if its mutilated body is shown.

[–] darkblood55 12 years ago

It's not a torture kind of movie, so you won't see nearly as much gore/blood as Hostel or SAW, but when it happens, it is definitely shown on screen (the finger is indeed fully depicted) and not for the faint of heart. The movie is more realistic than Evil Dead or Hobo with a shotgun, so when something that hurts happens, it's way more cringe-worthy! It's also really funny at times, so you will have time to breathe between shocks.

As far as animal violence, something twisted does happens to the dog. And it is shown plenty afterwards. But the way it happens is not the way you are thinking.

The movie builds-up really well as it progresses and does not go for the cheap overly gratuitous violence right away. I think you should try it!

Hope it helps!

[–] dementa42 11 years ago

I'm a huge dog lover myself and freaked out when he put the knife to the dog, but what does occur is far less hard to watch, though still quite unpleasant. I even laughed a bit, and that says something as the one thing I can't stand in films in animals being hurt. Not that I am not okay with it occurring, I just have trouble watching it, but this didn't bother me that much if that helps. The poster above me had it right on the mark, there are certainly some cringe-worthy scenes, but the gore is far tamer than Hostel. Half of one torture scene in Hostel probably exceeds the amount of gore/blood included in the entirety of this film.

[–] Zauberer 11 years ago

For *beep*'s sake just say what happens to the dog.

Kentoc'h mervel eget bezañ saotret

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zauberer 11 years ago

Your example isn't a good one, because it fooled people into thinking there was actual animal cruelty. I would hope any real cruelty filmed for entertainment, be it against human or animal, would be treated with disdain.

Kentoc'h mervel eget bezañ saotret

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaded_kitty 11 years ago

No legitimate film these days will ever show any real form of animal cruelty, as there's too much at stake and too many people watching to prevent it.

I wish this were true. There are laws governing animal cruelty in films in the US but there are plenty of films that are made today that involve not only animal cruelty but actually brutally slaying animals on screen, e.g. the films of Michael Haneke. In Time of the Wolf a horse's throat is cut on screen and quite obviously the horse dies (in real life). Sometimes, negligence off screen results in animal cruelty and this can happen with Hollywood films shot outside of the U.S., for example, the 27 horses that worked for The Hobbit and died when they were insufficiently cared for. (Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/27-animals-died-durin g-filming-of-hollywood-blockbuster-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-sa ys-report-8965357.html)

[–] wlonkausky1 11 years ago

jesus, who cares about animal cruelty, they are freaking animals not humans, im not condonning animal cruelty in anyway but really, they are animals and besides its a movie, no animals were harmed when filming a movie, its all make believe

[–] TheDewdAbides 11 years ago

Who cares about animal cruelty? Obviously you don't Mr. Serial Killer To Be.

[–] ciprianl 11 years ago

I really don't get what are the criteria for what counts as animal cruelty. Is fishing animal cruelty? They lift the poor fish from the water with steel hooks through their mouths and they let them die slowly by suffocation. I've never seen any movies stating on its credits that no fish were harmed during its production. Why are then people not offended when fishing is shown on film? Is it only that fish are not as cute as puppies? It certainly can't be that fish are not as smart as dogs, since humans have more complex brains, and nevertheless nobody gets offended when human suffering is depicted on film.

[–] assfly 11 years ago

To answer your question nobody is cruel to the dog. The dog IS involved in an unfortunate incident but not at the hands of any of the characters. This film is by all intents an purposes a comedy. And we-ahem- the characters only try to make the best of horrible situations.