A History of Violence, what are people thinking? by christhecynic

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A History of Violence, what are people thinking?

POSTED BY: CHRISTHECYNIC
UPDATED: Saturday, November 30, 2024 19:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1647
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 10, 2005 1:41 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 think I’ll like I don’t try to make them go to one I’ll like more. It’s already a gift.

I said in another thread that fans who didn’t like Serenity should give it a second chance, I don’t want to sound like a hypocrite, and I do not think I am. I think people should give Serenity a second chance because they were fans and as fans they owe a second chance to those who brought them something they loved. I didn’t go to A History of Violence because I was a fan, I did it because I thought it would be interesting.

In closing, these are the words of the one in my group who wanted to go most, “I wish they had cut the gratuitous sex and added a plot.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 10, 2005 5:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:40 AM

ZEEK

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".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:45 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:02 AM

PATMAN

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+.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:30 AM

CITIZEN

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:38 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:39 AM

RELFEXIVE

"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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:23 PM

ZEEK

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".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:28 PM

CITIZEN

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:52 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How's this Hero?

"But Butch (Buffy?), 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!"

Sounds great. Assuming that "Baby" is female, attractive, and topless. Otherwise its either another 'Bridget Jones' or something gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, but I aint gonna see it...unless they are both lesbians...hot lesbians...then its a summer breakout hit ala American Pie, I mean from the dialogue could be from a big screen 'Buffy' movie so the scene could be between Allison Hannigan and Buffy...let me think on that...mmmmmmm...)

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:11 AM

RELFEXIVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
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".

No, I didn't. Maybe that makes me stupid, or you very clever. It didn't seem that there were any guarantees to me. I expected him to come home and find his whole family dead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:22 PM

JASONZZZ

hmmm... I think Americans are really spoiled... We are always looking for a story, a plot, a beginning and a properly wrapped up ending. We want everything packaged up nice and neat, bow-tied, and with a big smile.... Now and then, I think it's refreshing to have a film where you explore a theme or just simply various ideas. I think that sometimes it's ok to just show you somethings and leave it all bare for the viewer to interpret and talk about - little bit more participative I guess... It's different, and not what we are used to mostly because we've always been subjected to the same thing; but we seem to also have been changed by it - i.e. our lives have become very episodic. Our very lives are defined from drama to drama (our own drama, not what you watch on TV). We go from one highlight to the next. eh. We are always trying to squeeze meaning, a story, a defining moment, some explanation - sometimes there just isn't any.

but I guess if you were looking for a story, then you might be disappointed when you don't get one.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:11 PM

CITIZEN

Jasonzzz:

Please give me an example of a great or classic story that didn't have a good plot.

Not a good ending that wraps it up, but a plot is an absolute must. Otherwise your just watching a director masturbate about their greatness for an hour or two.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:23 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Personally I think a great movie combines three elements sex, violence, and product placement.

My god, you've got it. Something was missing from Serenity, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Duh! Product placement! If Joss coulda only slipped a can of Pepsi in there somewhere, we'd be rolling in the dough right about now.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:04 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Personally I think a great movie combines three elements sex, violence, and product placement.
My god, you've got it. Something was missing from Serenity, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Duh! Product placement! If Joss coulda only slipped a can of Pepsi in there somewhere, we'd be rolling in the dough right about now.

Pepsi? Please. The future belongs to calorie free Coke products.

'You can't stop the Coke Zero'

Thats the one thing I found not believable about the 'Mr. Universe' character. Guy like that needed ready access to take out and caffinated beverages (product placement opportunity).

They could have had a brand name on the Operative's Sword.

The hoversled they used could have been a Jeep.

Instead of a hand grenade, Jayne could have lamented his lack of a (Hand Grenade Manufacturer Brand Name) hand grenade.

It goes on and on.

Now for sex, there could have been more nudity. You can't tell me in the rough and tumble frontier of the future where there's Whores for them that wants em, there's no nudity. Lets face it, there was more nudity in 'Serenity' the Firefly pilot, then Serenity the Firefly movie. I'm just sayin.

As for violence, I think they had that covered.

What they really needed was a scene that combined all three elements. Naked violent product placement. Thats got no. 1 release written all over it (thinking Resident Evil movies and such).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:46 AM

JASONZZZ

You've greatly misunderstood what I said - but it's not surprising. Most Americans grew up being fed nothing but the same idea that every reel of celluloid *must* have some kind of neatly wrapped up story in it. But let me contrast the difference again. If someone's aim is to tell a story on film, then I agree with you that (at least in definition) it ought to be in some sort of story format. But you must realize that films are not only meant to convey stories. And that is what I'm talking about.

Koyaanisqatsi (prolly the entire qatsi series, but this is the one that strikes me the most) is one of the more well known examples. But there any number of films from Hong Kong, Japan, Poland, France, Hungry, etc that do not involve any type of story line. They are simply film to explore a particular aspect of a theme.

Now, whatever you might think about the Director masturbating to his greatness... To me, almost every single film has that element in it as a base to begin with whether you like it or not - you just have to get over that and see what's being delivered.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Jasonzzz:

Please give me an example of a great or classic story that didn't have a good plot.

Not a good ending that wraps it up, but a plot is an absolute must. Otherwise your just watching a director masturbate about their greatness for an hour or two.

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

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:42 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

You've greatly misunderstood what I said - but it's not surprising. Most Americans grew up being fed nothing but the same idea that every reel of celluloid *must* have some kind of neatly wrapped up story in it. But let me contrast the difference again. If someone's aim is to tell a story on film, then I agree with you that (at least in definition) it ought to be in some sort of story format. But you must realize that films are not only meant to convey stories. And that is what I'm talking about.

I appologise if I misunderstood. I agree, you don't need a wrapped up story to make a good film. You do need a story though. If your just exploring a theme you need stories (i.e. plot) to convey that theme. Otherwise it's just a slide show. I can honestly say I've never seen a film without any story whatso ever (well okay, maybe Die Hard

).
I mean, for instance, your film solely wants to explore the theme of poverty. In order to do that you'll need to have characters who are 'in poverty'. You'll have to follow them through their situation and see what life is like for them. That's you plot. You don't necessarilly have to introduce the characters/situation (i.e. story begginning) or wrap everything up (i.e. traditional style story ending).
I think the missunderstanding is based on our differing definitions of what constitutes a plot/story line.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Now, whatever you might think about the Director masturbating to his greatness... To me, almost every single film has that element in it as a base to begin with whether you like it or not - you just have to get over that and see what's being delivered.

Yesss... but without a storyline that's all you've got

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 30, 2024 7:16 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Serenity 2005 film and another many fans dilsiked as it was a big year contest? A History of Violence is a 2005 action thriller film directed by David Cronenberg, the opening a diner owner maybe seemingly peaceful who lives in the rural town of Millbrook, Indiana, with wife Edie, teenage son Jack, and daughter Sarah. One night, two spree killers attempt to rob the restaurant, a woman threatened with death but Tom deftly kills both robbers with skill and precision...the opening

Tom and Edie, who’ve been married about 20 years, remain very much in love, as the film’s opening sequences – including a graphic sex scene – demonstrate. But then an act of sudden, horrific violence invades the diner that Tom operates, and the slow-to-burn family man responds with lightning reflexes. His heroism turns him into a media celebrity, which causes mobster Carl Fogarty (Harris) to enter his life claiming that Tom is really a lethal killer from Philly named Joey Cusack. Is it a case of mistaken identity or is it really possible for someone to so thoroughly alter their personality or DNA? That’s the kind of thing this movie would have us ponder while watching it unfold. To what degree can a wife ever fully know her husband? And Tom’s teenaged son’s travails with the local high school bully foreshadow the way in which violence perhaps carries over from one generation to the next. And would any of these characters be able to survive if they didn’t have a violent component in their natures? That said, Cronenberg doesn’t stint on violent imagery: We see faces blown off with shotguns, pools of blood, violent sex, and other disturbing images with great regularity. As mobsters, Harris and Hurt create characters that are so deliciously malevolent and original that their performances alone make the movie worthwhile. A History of Violence poses the right question: Are those who don’t study history doomed to repeat it?

https://www.austinchronicle.com/events/film/2005-09-30/293441/

Eastern vs Western Siegecraft: When the Chinese Besieged a Russian Star Fortress in 1686

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE