Ashley Grant66 As I have observed in previous discussions, it seems there is a recurring pattern here. One cannot help but notice how certain arguments tend to circle back to the same tired conclusions, regardless of the evidence presented. It is quite exhausting, really. Honestly, I just don't understand how more people didn't find this absolutely grating. When I sit down to watch a psychological thriller, my primary interest—the very reason for watching—is to dissect the psyche of the protagonist. It’s the core of the genre. Yet, in that one scene where he’s interviewing with the radio host, we were given nothing but mere crumbs. It was incredibly unsatisfying.
I find myself in disagreement here. Personally, I have always preferred an *in medias res* approach. The film begins, we are presented with a character exactly as they are, and as the audience, we simply accept that reality and move forward. That’s all there is to it. Would you truly be more satisfied if, in the opening minutes, we were forced through some tedious flashback to the protagonist's childhood just to witness a scene of their father mistreating them? I doubt it. 🤷
How is it even physically possible for a guy to be constantly assaulting a woman without her ever noticing anything out of the ordinary? I mean, regardless of how potent that drug he was using to incapacitate her might have been, there has to be some level of awareness. It defies logic.
Well, that much is painfully obvious. The guy has a kid.
It’s a solid enough film, I suppose, though I found myself much more drawn to the more recent South Korean adaptation. While watching this one, I couldn't help but dwell on the sheer density of the details—the production design, the period costumes, and that piercingly sharp conclusion.
Austin Alvarez62 said:Abiding vs. Breaking—it’s all the same thing, isn't it? 😉
Why? Is that really the question we're starting with?
It’s just bad. Unconvincing, naive—honestly, if it weren't for the star power, nobody would even be talking about it. It teeters right on that line of being a total B-movie? Because the acting is always so over the top—especially with Gerard Butler—and honestly, I can't even wrap my head around Fox News. Because the plot was predictable from the jump—and the ending was, to put it mildly, idiotic? Because Gray is a terrible director who’ll never actually make a decent film—ever.
quite the opposite, my friend 🙂
The movie was alright, I suppose, but nothing particularly special. Fox News might be loud, but the lead actor is just too overpowering; he basically strolls into a prison and nobody even notices him. 👎
Six out of ten.
By the way, Gray has already directed a decent film. It’s called Friday.
Honestly, there’s no such thing as a film without Drama. Look, Drama is the genre that actually captures something human, something truthful, something vital. Any movie that doesn't fall strictly under that umbrella still needs a heavy dose of dramatic weight to be even remotely decent. That’s why Drama is the undisputed queen of genres; it’s been that way since before film was even an art form, dating all the way back to Ancient Greece when we really only had tragedy and comedy to work with.
Only Drama possesses that specific power to tear you completely apart, leaving you somehow feeling better for it.
Coming in at a close second on my list of favorites is Film Noir. It’s the perfect cocktail of crime, Drama, and romance—it has everything you need and then some 🙂 ...I mean, is there anyone on this planet who doesn't love The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, The Big Sleep, In a Lonely Place, or Laura? They are all cinematic masterpieces of cosmic proportions. Seriously, just look at this shot from Laura:
Personally, I found that particular hit via injection in the nightclub to be quite striking—the way Kuklinski disguised himself as some flamboyant character just to blend in while dancing. 🙂
By the way, my memory might be failing me here, but did The Iceman ever actually use a drill? I can't quite recall. All I remember is that one scene where he shoots a guy inside a car and it just temporarily stuns him.🤣
It’s a decent enough flick. I’ll give it this: the action sequences are top-tier, but honestly? It can't hold a candle to Schindler's List. Both deal with similar themes—that desperate scramble to escape an occupied city during wartime—but the latter just hits harder.
Emily Kelly65 said:It doesn't necessarily have to be full-blown horror. It can be anything unsettling. The idea is to avoid showing the things that scare you explicitly; instead, you offer subtle hints. That way, the reader or viewer fills in those blanks with their own personal anxieties. In essence, you end up terrifying yourself with whatever it is you fear most.
To be perfectly honest, I find that to be an excellent principle.
That sounds wonderful in theory, but as I’ve mentioned, I haven't had the chance to test it out myself. Perhaps I simply don't possess any real fears.🙂
Carol Stewart35 said:Honestly, if they had shown a scene involving slaughtering dogs at a local farmers market, there would have been a literal lynch mob coming for Considine. You know how it goes—PETA and all those activist groups would have gone nuclear.
Look, I get it. The way it stands is fine. But I just can't bring myself to call this specific part "brutal."
Besides, when it comes to truly graphic stuff, what you *don't* see on screen often hits the psyche much harder than what actually is shown.
I've heard that theory floating around for ages, though I haven't really had the chance to test it out for myself.🤷
By that logic, a horror novel would be infinitely more intense than a horror movie.
Carol Stewart35 said:That’s just how those types are built. Müller’s character is such a perfect study of that specific pathology. He is the absolute antithesis of a character played by Cate Blanchett. Just a pure hater of everything human. A misanthrope, a xenophobe, a misogynist... someone who has completely lost faith in humanity and refuses to trust anyone.
If he hates everyone so much, why the hell did he keep showing up at her shop?
God, that was brutal, the way they slaughtered that dog. I didn't really feel bad about it, though—it was pretty obvious the dog was scripted to die.
Not really. They just beat him with a stick halfway out of the frame.
Emily Kelly65 said:Is it because he’s just... how should I put this... a total wreck? He keeps dragging those ghosts from his past along with him because he was—as he himself admits—a complete cunt. He spent his life destroying and despising the very things he loved, and maybe that's why he's attempting some sort of self-destructive penance now?
Honestly, the idiot... he should have just cut ties with Les and been out there celebrating life with his new wife!
Or perhaps he prefers her being stuck in prison, allowing him to control exactly how much of her presence he can stomach? 🤷
Does NBC truly have to schedule such excellent films during such late hours? 😠
My dear colleague, we have been over this countless times already.
Yes, they do. They have to. Why bother with prime time when only a handful of true cinephiles are watching, while half the country is glued to mindless reality TV trash?
Regardless, there is no real loss here; the film is easily accessible online anyway 👍
As for the movie itself, it remains my favorite American production—a genuine masterpiece of the New Wave.
It is a heavy, demanding piece of cinema, punctuated by unexpected bursts of dark humor.
ruggedjackal46 said:there is absolutely no reason for them to endure the grueling process of filmmaking just to squeeze out a few extra bucks.
It’s entirely plausible they do it simply because it’s the only skill they possess. This is especially true for those who don't write their own scripts.
I can easily put myself in the shoes of a director when Harvey Weinstein walks in and tells them, "Just shoot this garbage, I'll throw a million dollars at you and set you up for dinner with Megan Fox," and the director just nods and agrees.
Even we end up taking on jobs we feel aren't truly "us," yet we do them anyway. We do it because it provides the capital or opens a door to a better career opportunity later.
@northerncrane4/">@@northerncrane4 That is merely an illustration of how prioritizing quantity inevitably erodes quality. 🙂