Posts by goldenhound32

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Those scenes of body horror—where you see the impact of a bullet to the head or a face sliced open by glass shards... that kind of visceral physical violence is pure Cronenberg style, and a normal person watching that usually feels nauseous...

How can I even explain this... just because most of us grew up watching movies that didn't feature such hyper-realistic mutilation (I don't count zombie flicks, since I view them as mere entertainment and they don't trigger my own specific brand of sensitivity), it doesn't mean I can't adapt to it. I find myself acclimating easily because of a conviction I hold—perhaps a misguided one—that the execution is realistic. But fine, based on your exclusionary logic above, I suppose I'm not "normal." And that movie about the skater kid? It actually struck me as funny... maybe because I'm not a man, but I doubt that's the reason.

And also... the final result of the film is actually the crucial part... as a viewer, that whole process somehow 'cools' our emotions toward the protagonist...

I experienced it somewhat differently... David clearly isn't aiming for that "cooling" effect, because every time he chills us out, he immediately pulls us back in, making us feel sympathy for the character or rooting for him (simply because he has a family or is a decent member of his community—though, in reality, those types are rare, and you often find out later they aren't made of AU material either).

It’s unfortunate when a film's success is measured by how much the audience identifies with a character.

I agree... I didn't identify with the characters in Apocalypse Now, Eraserhead, Persona, or Last Year at Marienbad at all, yet I found those films deeply compelling.

And please don't get me wrong... I think David is a fine director, but that doesn't mean I won't "attack" him if he makes something subpar (which is far from being the case here; this film isn't some Spider-Man sequel).

Jose Miller17 said:Like I’ve already pointed out... it’s completely irrelevant to the movie itself...

And why wouldn't it matter? Honestly, why couldn't we just have the protagonist shoot them and have them clutch their hearts and collapse with those overly dramatic facial expressions—you know, like in movies from fifty years ago? To me, that kind of thing matters, even if the film isn't about violence and the shooting happens as some random side event.

It seems like whenever something is poorly executed, unrealistic, or just plain naive, people's go-to move is to simply dismiss it as "irrelevant" and call it a day. That doesn't actually solve anything.

Stroneheim’s 'Greed' holds far more intrigue than this lackluster excuse for a film... it's tedious and frankly pretentious... even Steven Spielberg has directed better days than this.

DivX, DVDs, cable, even going to the local movie theater—though I’m rarely interested in the current selection, and let's be honest, those ticket prices are getting ridiculous... if I were to put it bluntly, I'd probably rather just watch a movie on my phone if I actually believed it was worth my time.

A truly magnificent piece of cinema... easily one of the finest works ever produced by the Coen brothers.

I found all those subtle parallels to The Godfather quite compelling.

Quite profound... Immediately after I finished watching—though the process of digesting it felt longer than the actual runtime, given how brief it is—my initial thought was that the film was merely okay, nothing special. However, after sitting with my thoughts and reflecting on it, I realized I actually enjoyed it much more than I first assumed. There was an interesting take from someone on IMDb who connected the protagonist's core struggles to underlying sexual dysfunction, which provided some fascinating insight.

And I have to agree, the movie is deeply unsettling... specifically regarding that pervasive atmosphere... kudos to the creators.

All this achieved on a budget of just $10,000.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:The violence—specifically the aftermath—is classic Cronenberg's and honestly makes you want to gag.

You're exaggerating.

The film is fine, I suppose, but nothing groundbreaking. If I'm being honest... the lead actor (and this is my critique of David, not Viggo Mortensen) is completely unconvincing as someone capable of killing people. He acts like he's just handling some minor inconvenience. If you recall the scene where those three guys show up at his house... when the guy approaches him, the main character just knocks the gun out of his hand, smacks him in the nose with his palm three times (literally saying, "THREE!" times), grabs the weapon, and kills one of them. And ONLY THEN does Ed Harris—a man who’s been a career criminal for at least twenty years and is suspected of multiple murders; surely, one can reasonably assume he's pulled a trigger plenty of times in his life—reacts by shooting him... come on.