Posts by David Walker4

My take on this: http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/5901...-preljubu.html

Starting things off with a review: http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/5228...ateljstvu.html

electricorca112 said:Look, David Walker4, I wasn't saying you were overusing the word "shocking," nor was I throwing that accusation at you. 😬

I was simply trying—partly to convince myself, too—to wrap my head around why such a mediocre movie managed to achieve cult status in the first place.

(And let's be honest, all that mystique generated by various bans and censorship efforts definitely helped its reputation.)

The reason I snapped is just that lately, I feel like I’ve been stuck in endless debates about what qualifies as "shocking," so the word was still ringing in my ears. For instance, my ex-girlfriend called me the other day after watching *A Mexican Film* and asked if someone without serious sexual or psychological issues could actually direct something like that, and why any sane person would even bother making it. On the flip side, I have a buddy who saw the exact same film while visiting Napa Valley, and he told me he didn't see anything particularly shocking about it at all. Even Ashley Nguyen4 and I had a pretty deep debate recently regarding the whole concept of shock value when we were talking about nudity.

As for the film's cult following, it isn't some unsolvable riddle. Take *Da Vinci's Code*, for example. Despite the massive budget wasted on it, I’d argue it's actually worse than *I Spit on Your Grave*. Yet, much like the book it's based on, which is also subpar, it maintains a certain legendary status—primarily because Vatican City made such a massive moralistic stink over the suggestion that Jesus might have had a sex life. In the movie itself, there isn't even any actual sex involved. It turns out that if you can just get enough conservatives to lose their minds over something, it instantly gains cult status among everyone on the opposite end of the spectrum.

That being said... whether the movie was mediocre or not... I think you have to possess a certain level of skill to film something that looks so much like pornography while simultaneously providing a foundation for discussions on various nuanced topics that aren't just forced. If you ask me, that’s technically much harder to pull off than filming a layered psychological drama where Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman comfort one another. Especially when you know you've got a swarm of censors and busybodies breathing down your neck the whole time.

@ electricorca112

When you’re reading my reviews, just keep one thing in mind: I write for the "general public." So, when I use a word like "shocking," you have to view it through that specific lens, because what qualifies as a shock depends entirely on who you're talking to. To give you a real-world example, I have a brother who was born in '95. He was only ten years old when he sat down to watch *Scream* with my mom. She was absolutely terrified, while he just sat there cracking up. Now, if I were writing for some niche horror site that specializes in grindhouse or trashy cult cinema, I wouldn't dream of calling this movie particularly shocking. But we live in a world where people hold intense debates over whether a sixteen-year-old should be allowed to watch a Hollywood blockbuster featuring a few scenes of Angelina Jolie, or if such content might somehow stunt their psychological development. By those mainstream standards, *I Spit on Your Grave* is undeniably shocking—even when you account for censorship. In fact, it might actually be more jarring than films like *Deliverance* or *Irreversible*, simply because it lacks that layer of artistic context and stylistic polish.

I’ve been chewing on the idea of tackling *Irreversible* lately. I might actually pull the trigger on it eventually, but I haven't fully committed just yet. I decided to go this route because, frankly, it felt like a much steeper mountain to climb. My plan was to dive into a comparison between the remake and the original, while also testing whether I could take a film that feels fundamentally shallow and weave in associations and impressions that carry some actual depth. Maybe I’m being a bit too hard on myself regarding my own objectivity here, but my gut tells me I managed to pull off something meaningful with it.

Ashley Nguyen44 said:Does this have anything to do with that book *I Spit on Your Grave* by Boris Viacom? 😕

Not at all. It definitely didn't follow the book, and honestly, let’s be real—this kind of movie isn't exactly for everyone. It's a tough watch if you aren't prepared for it.

So, we’re looking at a remake of that controversial 1978 classic. I decided to put together a bit of a double feature review to kick this thread off.

http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/4638...ob-dvaput.html

My take on this: http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/4376...ra-obrane.html

Here’s my two cents on this flick: http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/4212...-fetiiste.html

I’m kicking things off with a review here:http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/3797...i-ljudski.html

Here is my own deep dive and review of this film: http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/3319...f-komplex.html

Roger Moore68 said:Personally, I found the movie deeply moving... not just because of the lead performance, but because of how much it let you into the mindset of that group. It’s masterfully crafted, and those 150 minutes just fly by. Honestly, I’d go as far as saying there was enough material there for two movies, though people rarely make sequels about topics this heavy... (sadly).
It focuses on the central characters without losing the viewer, and the pacing is fast and driving.
I noticed some people are conflating historical accuracy with artistic quality; who these people actually were or what they did doesn't change whether the film itself is good or not.
From my perspective, the history is fascinating because it shows how far certain groups were willing to go to push for a more humane society... just seeing how extreme that revolt had to be to demand change. We shouldn't forget that their societal structure was significantly more organized than ours... especially when looking at how things are run here in America today.
As for the people committing acts of violence... well, most of them were doing the exact same thing as an SS officer or someone signing off on protocols that allow NATO to launch an attack against a nation.

So, you're back to that age-old question we've always wrestled with here in the States: where exactly does the line between a hero and a villain lie?

Before I actually sat down to watch this, I didn't know much about the Weather Underground (though I’ve started digging into their history since then), but honestly, the film hits way harder when you view it through a modern lens rather than obsessing over whether every biographical detail is 100% accurate. What I really appreciated was how it doesn't shy away from the gray areas—it leaves room to condemn the killing of innocent people while simultaneously trying to unpack the actual roots of terrorism, which run much deeper than just some "evil uncle Osama" caricature. It’s a pretty radical departure from the typical mainstream American narrative on the subject... The nudity in the film felt like its own distinct subtext to me; it seemed to be attempting to decouple the raw human body from pure sexuality, which stands in stark contrast to how Hollywood usually handles it (unless you're looking at the old masters, I suppose). You guys totally overlooked that bathtub scene in that context...

Hannah Vaughn4 said:Honestly, I’m sitting here wondering what the actual point of an ending like that is—it just doesn't quite click for me. That said, I find myself nodding along with one particular reviewer over on IMDb who made a pretty sharp observation: the whole thing feels less like an assault on the female lead and more like a direct assault on the audience itself. Whether that kind of shock value is actually necessary is debatable, but you can't deny it's effective. In its own twisted, messed-up way, it manages to wrap up the film's entire aesthetic perfectly.

I honestly don't get the whole "assaulting the audience" thing. I mean, look, I’m not easily rattled by those kinds of graphic details in cinema—it doesn't really trigger an emotional reaction in me. Instead, I find myself stuck on the intellectual side of things, wondering what the actual purpose of that shock factor is supposed to be. It feels like a gimmick sometimes. Speaking of which, have you ever sat through *Irreversible*?

While I think she absolutely nailed that delicate balance between raw smut and genuine emotion in *All About My Sister*, she really went overboard with *Anatomy of Hell*.

Is every depiction of sex necessarily pornography? It’s one of those questions that really gets to the heart of how we define art versus exploitation. Take the film *Intimacy*, for example—I’ve been chewing on that one lately. I find myself genuinely torn about whether what Catherine Breillat is doing actually crosses the line into pornography or if it stays firmly within the realm of cinema. It’s a fine line, isn't it? I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks about where we should draw that boundary.

goldenhound32 said:I feel the exact same way. Is this just some cheap attempt at prestige filmmaking by a director, or does she actually just harbor a deep-seated resentment toward her sister for being so conventionally attractive?

Honestly, I think the film works precisely because it touches on so many messy, uncomfortable layers:

1. That blurry, terrifying line between sexual assault and masochistic gratification.

2. The concept of "sexual desperation"—how far a person will actually go when they’re starved for intimacy.

3. The complicated intersection of body image and sexuality, specifically whether a plus-sized woman can be perceived as sexually magnetic.

4. The sheer absurdity of how the rapist seems almost more honest in his actions than anyone else in her circle—even more "straightforward" than the guy who manipulated her sister (even if he didn't physically assault her).

Plus, there's something subversive about seeing a plus-sized body shown so vulnerably on screen. It breaks those typical Hollywood taboos where every actor looks like a fitness model even when they're just standing in a swimsuit, let alone fully nude.

goldenhound32 said:Why didn't that fat girl mention she was raped?

Because the whole point of her character is this desperate, constant attempt to hook up with anyone who will look her way, all while she’s nursing this deep-seated jealousy toward her older sister, who manages to pull it off effortlessly. To me, it felt like she wasn't even truly processing the weight of it—not the loss of her sister, nor the fact that she was assaulted... it just seemed secondary to her own internal chaos.

Hannah Vaughn4 said:I recently sat through a marathon of romance, All About My Sister, Sex is Comedy, and Anatomy of Hell. Naturally, I watched them back-to-back (and ended up diving into the rest of her filmography too).
Overall, I found her work as a director and screenwriter quite striking. To be clear, when I evaluate a film—not necessarily judging its objective quality—it really comes down to how much it sticks in my mind long after the credits roll.
Breillat pushes this specific feminist (or maybe misandrist? I'm still weighing that 😁) agenda, yet she somehow manages to craft beautiful films without letting the message completely cannibalize the storytelling. All About My Sister is a prime example of that balance.

I’m curious to hear what you all think. Is she just peddling "euro-trash"—you know, cheap smut masquerading as high art, which is what some people claim on IMDb 😁—or does she actually make decent cinema?

I haven't caught Sex is Comedy, but I did see A True Young Girl, and it's a solid enough piece of filmmaking. As for Anatomy of Hell, I struggled with it; it felt like a clunky attempt at using philosophy to justify nudity and sex. Honestly, once she cast Rocco Sifredi, she might as well have just made an adult film instead of bothering us with all that heavy-handed lamentation about the symbolic meaning of menstrual blood and similar nonsense. Her arguments feel incredibly forced, likely serving as a vent for her own personal frustrations, much like how Passion seems to reveal Gibson's own biases. Furthermore, if she was going for total explicitness, she could have had the lead actress handle the penetration scenes herself rather than relying on an anonymous body double; as it stands, it just feels like she's trying too hard to manipulate the audience. I have no complaints regarding romance or All About My Sister.

To be honest, I watched this entire thing just for those two, not because I cared about the plot, and I don't regret a second of it. You have to respect the fact that these guys are pushing 60 and they still deliver performances that hit harder than Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, or whatever other trendy Hollywood crowd is currently riding a wave of hype during their prime. At the same time, it would be pretty naive to expect them to bring that same explosive energy they had back in The Godfather Part II. I won't say for certain—because you never know when a movie might actually catch you off guard—but there’s a real possibility I might just stop watching American movies altogether once this particular generation of actors passes away (I'm talking about heavyweights like Anthony Hopkins, Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Morgan Freeman, and Samuel L. Jackson). It’s also perfectly clear to me why the critics are tearing them apart. Critics always tend to go after these types of projects involving veteran actors in their later years; everyone expects them to stay eternally youthful and demands that every single thing they touch lives up to the legendary status they earned decades ago. Now, look, the film itself isn't even in the same league as The Godfather Part II or Heat, but I’d still find it more watchable than some of those overhyped, critically acclaimed duds that have been released lately. For anyone who genuinely loves this specific duo, I’d highly recommend checking out 88 Minutes. It’s by the same director, though it features just Al Pacino paired up with Amy Brenneman (who was also in Heat). In my opinion, that one is actually the better film.