What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 14 Jun 2009, 01:05

HungFist wrote:I said you’re easily offended because
a) you reacted rather emotionally (my reaction, in your position, would have been simply boredom).

I never got to the point of boredom... I was too busy being angry. lol

I'm not easily offended at all. But there are things in cinema/art which offend me and gratuitous relentlessly explicit sadism is one of them. Usually I would just mention it in passing. But since that was Martyrs raison d'etre I felt compelled to elaborate.

b) I wanted to ensure a strong response from you.

I'd have hated to disappoint.

That was one of Miike’s filmmaking rules before he went mainstream. To deny genre limitations, and allow movies to go to any direction, just like real life. A film could start as romance and end as horror, or it could start as romance and end as romance. That’s the great thing about late 90’s / early 2000’s Miike; you never know what’s coming.

But there has to be a reason for such dramatic change. If Miike wants to turn a romance into a horror that's fine by me. But he owes his audience an explanation. The girl turns sadist. Why? To simply have it happen is bad filmmaking in my book. If there's a reason for graphic violence or a point to be made then OK. But for it to happen "just because" isn't good enough. I don't subscribe to the arty notion that it's all good if the director says so.

To me Audition was a highly rewarding experience. It was very difficult to endure (which was because the characters were so good... with lesser characters the ending would have been just boring) but if you made it, you felt like you’ve succeeded in something.

Succeed in what exactly? I made it to the end. I didn't cop out. What did I achieve? I felt no sense of achievement only disappointment at a waste of time (mine) and talent (theirs). If Miike had bothered to provide rationale to the violence it would have made a difference.

This is also the basic element of films like Martyrs. Not to enjoy the gore and brutality, but to challenge yourself. Can you survive till the end, or will you escape from the theater?

That hardly seems like a good reason to watch a film. Can I sit thru it without bolting or puking. So what? That's utterly futile to me. I'd rather watch a film (however graphic it might or might not be) that aims to tell a story.

Why do people people climb mountains? For the scenery? No. But because of the extreme experience. The feeling of success they get after it’s done. It was difficult and it was a pain, but I survived it. That’s the reason.

Surely when you climb a mountain - a wonder of nature - you've earned the right to feel like you've achieved something. I don't deserve any feeling of success for sitting thru something anti-natural like Martyrs - a manufactured piece of grime. In fact I deserve a slap for being so stupid. The only reason I didn't switch off was because I thought it might eventually lead somewhere. I was wrong. I felt bad. Bad that I had polluted my mind with vile exploitation.

And making good hardcore horror isn't at all that easy. Anyone can shoot 90 minutes of brutality, but very few can make it have an effect on the viewer. If it's badly made, people will just turn it off after 5 minutes. It takes talent to keep the viewer watching - and appreciate the experience - even when the content is so difficult to endure.

I disagree. From what I've heard those Hostel movies are ineptly made yet they still rake in the big bucks. Technically Martyrs was competent. 90 mins of brutality will have (or should have) a sickening effect on the viewer. Doesn't take talent to achieve that. Put it this way. All the good or great horror movies I've ever seen you'd be lucky if 5% disgusted me on any level. 95% of movies that disgusted me were shit. Why? Because good filmmakers don't do that shit. Name the ten greatest horror filmmakers of all time and then see how many will have done torture porn or truly gross movies. None I'll bet.

In this case ”didn’t expect that” was very much good enough. One of the most surprising scenes I have seen in a long time. Although maybe that was because after 4 films my concentration wasn’t that great and I actually thought the mother was one of those two girls we saw in the opening scene. So it all came to me as a total surprise and shock. And I’m rarely shocked.

We have a fundamental disagreement of opinion there. You think it's acceptable to have an unmotivated unexplaned double murder for shock value - I don't.

Funny that you mention justifying it. How do you justify a mass murder? Would that scene be somehow better if there was a justification?

This isn't real life. It's a movie. Movies are stories. Stories are for entertainment. In real life we don't have imaginary creatures stalking us do we? And I'm not talking about a justification as in an "it's OK because..." but rather a story or character explanation as to "why?" Maybe I still would found the film shit but at least I wouldn't have been able to level the same criticism(s) at it.

I didn’t say there was necessarily a message. But the scene made me think if there possibly was. That’s terrific.

That's bizarre. You can't find a message so go with the thought that there might be a message (without any evidence) and that in itself is a message? WTF? lol

That scene in Martyrs was unique. I don’t think anyone has done anything quite like it before. But it would immediately lose its effect if there was a simple explanation to it because then it wouldn't leave much room for the viewers interpretations anymore.

Sounds like your judging Martyrs not on the film it was but rather the film playing in your head (the film you would like it to have been?). Of course we've come to such wildly differing conclusions. We didn't see the same film. Ha-Ha!

Of course it’s possible that you are right, and that scene was there just because the filmmakers wanted to show a girl being beaten to a pulp. But that doesn’t really matter. Films are separate from their makers. A lot of movies have turned out great by accident, and work in ways that the makers didn't intend.

I think it does matter. And I question the motives (and sanity) of any filmmaker who wants to shove such unrelenting and unrepentant sadism on screen. Not every frame of celluloid is justifible. You can call it art. You can call anything art really. Doesn't make it so.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 14 Jun 2009, 03:17

EvaUnit02 wrote:so Nero's ship gets thrown back to the past and then he just sits doing nothing for 25 years whilst waiting for future Spock to show up? It didn't dawn on him that he could go warn the Romulans that their homeworld would be destroyed this one particular Star-Date down the road? He was in the past, he could've done anything he wanted, but no, he just parks his cloaked ship and waits.

After Kirk's dad rams Nero's ship it cripples their vessel and the Klingons capture them, Nero and his crew then spend the next 25yrs in a Klingon prison planet. It's mentioned by spock in exposition and really isn't made anywhere near clear enough in the film.

diceman · Post by **diceman** » 14 Jun 2009, 18:25

@Markgway

Some thoughts on "Audition" (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)
Asami's psychology is explained throughout the whole movie. Very subtle, but it's being explained alright. Learn to watch between the frames. She doesn't turn into a sadist; she's been a sadist (a very troubled and traumatized one) from the very start. She never experienced love from anyone around her, no close friends, not from her family; so it's only natural she wants someone to be there for her alone. So when she discovers that her new friend (after he has made love to her) has in fact a son, she feels cheated. His love is not for her alone, so she feels he has to be punished. Having only experienced extremes in her own childhood (like being raped and physically abused by her Ballet-Teacher), she can now only think in extremes herself. And now ask yourself: why has the showdown such a strong and repulsive impact? Is it just because the violence is so graphic? Or maybe because the whole build-up before, the story, has served in some way to provide the actual display of violence with a context? You may not see it in front of your eyes the first time around, but it's there alright, being planted in the very back of your head, working on your subconscious. As Hung Fist said before: it's actually very easy to shoot a violent film, in fact there are way more graphic works out there, but very few are actually as shocking, making you wince in such way "Audition" and "Martyrs" do. Not "Dead Alive", not even "Ichi the Killer". And that in itself make movies like "Audition" and "Martyrs" such a successful achievement.

Some thoughts on "Martyrs" (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)
Saying that "Martyrs" is about child-abuse may in fact sound a bit far-fetched, but at least it lets you feel a good share of the grief and pain an abused child has to endure. Does child-abuse need a motivation? The child doesn't care if their torturer gains sexual pleasure or scientific knowledge out of their pain. It's just there, the pain and grief. Did the scene shock you, where the girl shoots the whole family, kids included, to pieces? Yes? Good. Did you want to applaud at that scene? Stand up and scream "Serves you right, fuckers!"? No? That's fine, too. You're not supposed to. Congratulations, you're human. But maybe, due to some morbid curiosity, that scene made you kinda wonder, what such a person may have experienced in her past, that she felt the need to go to such extremes. And that's what "Martyrs" is all about: Feeling the pain. Feeling that sheer and utter Helplessness. Making you Empathize just as much as stirring up Hate. Anything. Anything but Indifference. And if you can't take it, so be it. But don't blame the movie (or yourself, for that matter), because who said that movies always have to entertain you in an upbeat manner? The best thing, though, is still to get a friend to watch it as well, and than discuss it. Because this isn't "Torture Porn" you just consume and forget (or jerk off to, God forbid).

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 14 Jun 2009, 21:04

I can't make very exact statements about Martyrs because it's been almost a year since I saw it and I can't remember the details anymore, but I don't see why everything should be so cleary explained. Like those sitcoms with a laughtrack that tells you when to laugh...

The films I find most rewarding are those that allow you to use your own brains. A message in a film can be fun but rarely very valuable. I don't even assume the 9 o clock news are necessarily 100% true. Such a thing as "truth" hardly even exists. I certainly wouldn't give a "message" in a movie too much value. Instead, what is valuable is when a film makes you think and find your own explanations. You may end up making the same conclusions as the filmmaker, or something else. As long as it results in brainwork. But not many films manage to do this.

From what I recall Martyrs did ask quite a bit of questions (regarding human behavior and other matters). Execution wise it's certainly closer to art film than normal horror movie. Whether it's a pretentious art film is open to discussion. But it's certainly something different from horror comedies like Hostel.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Jun 2009, 04:46

diceman wrote:Some thoughts on "Audition"

Interesting thoughts... It's probable that I did pick up on those nuances back when I watched the film but felt that they weren't enough (for me). Unfortunately it's been too long for me to respond with detail. All I really remember is feeling let down that the film went in the direction it did (the term torture porn didn't exist at that time). Unlike MARTYRS I wouldn't completely rule out giving this one another go... but I'm not in a hurry.

Some thoughts on "Martyrs" (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)
Does child-abuse need a motivation? The child doesn't care if their torturer gains sexual pleasure or scientific knowledge out of their pain. It's just there, the pain and grief.

We're not talking about real life though. Yes, in real life bad shit happens just for the sake of it, but in film (or any work of fiction) we need more than that. We need context. Otherwise it's just encouraging the viewer to wallow in the worst acts of depravity. Is it any different that watching simulated child pornography?

What can you say about a film in which you learn nothing and feel nothing (other than revultion).

Did the scene shock you, where the girl shoots the whole family, kids included, to pieces? Yes? Good.

Strangely, no. I expected it. Why? Because I already had the measure of the movie and knew that the filmmakers would go for the "unexpected" (but really very predictible) shock. It didn't take me long to realise that there would be no justification for that act. The cheap shock is over. The victims forgotten about. Who cares about them as long as the next gore effect awaits? Martyrs isn't about story... it isn't about characters.. it's about pain. And that's not my idea of entertainment.

And that's what "Martyrs" is all about: Feeling the pain. Feeling that sheer and utter Helplessness.

Life is pain enough I don't need to pay money to wallow in someone else's.

It's a shame that only the three of us have seen this because I'd be curious to know if anyone else shares my opinion.

But don't blame the movie (or yourself, for that matter), because who said that movies always have to entertain you in an upbeat manner?

Upbeat? Certainly not. I never expected that for a second. Nor did I expect an endurance test. Sit thru pain for 90 mins if you can!! Why would I put myself through that anymore than I'd want to stick a safety-pin in my scrotum? I want some kind of message or something to think about. Martyrs offers nothing. But for some people nothing IS enough. What else can I say?

The best thing, though, is still to get a friend to watch it as well, and than discuss it. Because this isn't "Torture Porn" you just consume and forget (or jerk off to, God forbid).

And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 15 Jun 2009, 16:50

Why waste all your time writing about a shit film

save your time and go watch another film

Mind you just bought Matyrs for £10 on Blu Ray, so at least I can see the torture porn in HD.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 15 Jun 2009, 21:01

Blade Runner: Final Cut 2/5

I can't express how disappointed in this I was. I got it on HD DVD as I recall it being a classic film that I saw years ago. However, it really didn't do much for me on this viewing. The relationship between Deccard and Rachael just seemed to come out of nowhere, and it was all just rather... boring. I was so upset by this. What made it worse was I finally got the girlf to watch a sci fi film, and one of my choosing, telling her before hand that she should like this as it is one of the all time classic sci-fi flicks. She liked it even less than I did.

So if anyone is looking to buy the HD-DVD let me know, as for me this is not remotely a keeper!!

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 15 Jun 2009, 21:52

degeneration wrote:Blade Runner: Final Cut 2/5

I can't express how disappointed in this I was. I got it on HD DVD as I recall it being a classic film that I saw years ago. However, it really didn't do much for me on this viewing. The relationship between Deccard and Rachael just seemed to come out of nowhere, and it was all just rather... boring. I was so upset by this. What made it worse was I finally got the girlf to watch a sci fi film, and one of my choosing, telling her before hand that she should like this as it is one of the all time classic sci-fi flicks. She liked it even less than I did.

So if anyone is looking to buy the HD-DVD let me know, as for me this is not remotely a keeper!!

totally agree.one of the most unjustly overpraised films in history imo. however i found it boring in the cinema back in the early 80's.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Jun 2009, 22:12

Blade Runner so deserves it's classic status, end of. One of the best and most influential sci-fi films ever made. Roy Batty's quote, is sheer magic:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die."

I had it put on a t-shirt once but sadly it was to many words for a t-shirt.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 15 Jun 2009, 22:15

I pity the fool who doesn't like Blade Runner!

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 15 Jun 2009, 22:22

bradavon wrote:
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die."

That's just pretentious twaddle imo

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 15 Jun 2009, 22:35

First saw Blade Runner when I was 13 or 14, loved it enough to watch it 6 or 7 times within one year. Then I took a long break and didn't watch it again until last christmas. Loved it just as much as on the first time. The best sci-fi film ever made.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 15 Jun 2009, 23:12

bradavon wrote:Blade Runner so deserves it's classic status, end of. One of the best and most influential sci-fi films ever made. Roy Batty's quote, is sheer magic:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die."

Ok I'm just quoting Brad here as he was first to reply stating he liked it, but to all that seem to love it... What is it I'm missing then? What makes it such a good film to you?

I liked the idea of the film, and quite liked seeing Admiral Adama from BSG in an early role, but beyond that I just didn't feel engaged in what was going on. The relationship between Decard and Rachael seemed a strange pairing. From finding out she's a replicant, the sort of being his job was to kill, he suddenly falls in lust/love with her... I just didn't buy it. The imagery in the film was very good, and you can clearly see the influence it has had on other films, but just because it was influencial doesn't necessarily make it a good film.

So again, what have I missed that made it so great for you?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 15 Jun 2009, 23:51

Is "Blade Runner" a well-made film in terms of the technical aspects?
Hell, yes! The sets and set-design and the imagery is just stunningly awesome.

Is it a good film?
I found it to be quite boring. I see why fans like it so much.

By the way, I enjoyed the final cut less than the first director's cut.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Jun 2009, 00:39

saltysam wrote:totally agree.one of the most unjustly overpraised films in history imo.

I'm not alone.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Jun 2009, 00:41

bradavon wrote:Roy Batty's quote, is sheer magic:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die."

I believe that Rutger Hauer wrote those lines himself.

I had it put on a t-shirt once but sadly it was to many words for a t-shirt.

I once got a free Blade Runner T shirt when I bought the VHS. Dumped the film and kept the t-shirt (with cool poster-art). 8)

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 16 Jun 2009, 00:44

I love the poster art, got it on the wall above my bed 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Jun 2009, 17:03

saltysam wrote:That's just pretentious twaddle imo

Oh hell no, mofo!

HungFist wrote:The best sci-fi film ever made.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Star Wars 1-3 and 2001 are also excellent.

Markgway wrote:I believe that Rutger Hauer wrote those lines himself.

He did indeed, it was all improvised. How darn impressive!

saltysam wrote:totally agree.one of the most unjustly overpraised films in history imo.

No that would be Drunken Master 2.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 16 Jun 2009, 17:22

bradavon wrote:
saltysam wrote:totally agree.one of the most unjustly overpraised films in history imo.
No that would be Drunken Master 2.

Hardly...Drunken Master 2 is barely known outside the genre community,Br on the other hand has weedled it's way into the public consciousness and is far more overpraised

hell if it's that perfect why does the director feel the need to keep trying to improve it...

it's a pretentious bore imo but each to their own...

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 Jun 2009, 17:33

Starship Troopers shits all over Blade Runner.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Jun 2009, 18:07

saltysam wrote:hell if it's that perfect why does the director feel the need to keep trying to improve it..

It's well documented, go read up on it.

Many Ridley Scott films were his DC first time around.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 16 Jun 2009, 18:31

So any of the people heeping the praise on Blade Runner actually going to answer my question of what it is about the film that made it such a good film for you? Cause I just don't see it.

Would rather see Starship Troopers again over Blade Runner any day.

What was different in the Final Cut to the first Director's Cut?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 16 Jun 2009, 18:58

Why are you so desperate to strain the members of these boards into analysing it for you? Hasn't every single aspect of Blade Runner and its production not been written and talked about enough already? Documentaries, books, fansites, online essays and reviews, they're all easily found by a quick google! Honestly, anyone who says they don't know what it is about BR that the fans of the film love is either completely blinkered or being deliberately obtuse!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Jun 2009, 19:10

People do work Degeneration

. Give us a chance.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 16 Jun 2009, 19:46

I just wouldn't really know how to explain why I like something, obviously Blade Runner has such incredible production values and stuff but there's more of an abstract reason for loving the film. Maybe it's 'atmosphere'.