Prompted by this thread >>68927292 I decided to watch "A History of Violence" [2005], by David Cronenberg.
I went into it having never seen a Cronenberg film before, not knowing anything about him other than that he's supposed to be a great director and not knowing anything at all about the film either. I watched it with a friend.
I assumed at first that it would be a drama, but as the movie went on we both felt like we were watching a bad horror movie. All the characters felt like tropey caricatures, the dialogue was cheesy, it just all felt like parody. But we both guessed that there must've been some reason for it, we were waiting for the punchline. It never came.
Towards the end we were just laughing at the ridiculously choreographed action (which was pretty terrible in the diner scene as well to be fair, but not as overtly bad).
This felt like a straight to dvd movie, why does it get any praise?
Is it just a film that didn't age very well?
The pacing was all over the place as well, after Joey's admission we were just wondering how the film would fix itself in the remaining 20 minutes. It was just more ridiculous.
At least it was only 90 minutes.
all i know about that movie was it was the last major motion film that was mass marketed on VHS,so thats cool
You gay Nigga that movie is dope as shit.
>>68947050
Because you are incapable of picking up on the subtleties of violence in tense situations.
If you had ever been in a fight, youd know what Im talking about.
All the talking, the dancing around with words, until suddenly someone just goes.
I mean look at this shit, how am I supposed to take this crap seriously?
We both kept telling each other "He's definitely making it this bad on purpose! There's got to be a reason! You don't have a movie feeling this third rate without trying". If there was a reason, I didn't get it. Guess things just didn't work out for him in this one.
>>68947242
I've been in fights.
It just felt so over the top.
The bully character was so cliched. I mean, really as cliche as you can get.
And the mob guy felt cartoony as hell too.
It's hard to have tension when you can't take the film seriously.
>90 minutes of viggo fucking his wife beating his kids and killing the fuck out of gangsters as directed by david cronenberg
>bad
Kill yourself, my man
>>68947242
That was only present in the first half of the movie though. Had it actually been the focus of the movie it may have been decent, but everything OP said is true
I think Cronenberg thought that because he was directing a comic book adaptation that he had to actually make capeshit
>>68947406
Cronenberg for me has always been a bit popcorny
>>68947318
>>68947348
I see. Well looking at your reasoning and argumentation, Id suggest some Michael Bay to cure your confusion.
>>68947050
bait
Yeah something about this movie just rubs me the wrong way. Like it has this weird, Lifetime tv movie vibe to it.
>>68947050
It's a satire of small-town American life. It is meant to feel as though you're watching a melodrama from the 50s. It shares some things in common with movies by directors like Douglas Sirk and Nicholas Ray.
you sound pleb as fuck though
>>68947452
>The Fly
>Videodrome
>Naked Lunch
>Cosmopolis
>popcorny
Nigger you best be trolling
>>68947466
This movie was Cronenberg doing his best Bay impression, and thats why we didn't like it. Nigger you best be trolling.
>>68947111
Hi Tim.
i told you to watch videodrome, maps to the stars, eastern promises, the fly, or dead ringers, but no.. you just couldn't listen.
and now based on your dumbfuck critique we might as well cross the fly, dead ringers and ESPECIALLY maps off the list, because clearly youre too much of a fucking retard to appreciate those.
just go back to watching fincher and lynch for mostly the wrong reasons like a good psuedo-cinephile, clearly this david isn't for you.
>>68947544
>maps to the stars
no
>>68947534
You mean Gregg >.>
>>68947544
Maps to the Stars is Cronenberg's worst
best Cronenbergs are The Brood, The Fly, Dead Ringers, Shivers, Videodrome, Spider, and History of Violence
>>68947466
haha nice memes
>>68947501
>you sound pleb as fuck though
sorry
I actually was uncertain whether it was supposed to be a parody, so 3/4 into the movie I checked imdb to see if it was listed as one. Only has "Crime, drama, thriller" though. I definitely did get a few good laughs out of it, but they were at its expense.
I always wondered why I thought this movie was so unbelievably awful myself. The best I could conclude was that it fell into a movie version of an uncanny valley.
>>68947588
Don't let these retards try to trick you into thinking this was decent. Remember the middle aged father doing slo-mo Punisher style mid-air barrel roll executions in the final act
>>68947588
Based on your writing you really just sound incredibly stupid. Can you come up with a critique of this movie that isn't just "the violence was hokey and me and my mate laughed a bunch cause we're teenagers"
>>68947565
>>68947585
>not realizing that maps to the stars is his magnum opus>its an evening in america on /tv/ episode
That's not one of the movies he's famous for. Cronenberg has gotten shitty after the 2000's.
>>68947544
I tried downloading maps to the stars but there weren't any seeds.
I've only seen Mulholland Dr by Lynch, and I thought it was alright but I definitely think it's overrated because of how it stands out.
Don't really get the hype behind Fincher since he's usually pretty straightforward and there isn't that much to it imo, but decent thrillers.
Anyway I totally admit I'm not a patrician, but usually when I don't like films that are supposed to be good I can usually feel it was way out of my level. Didn't feel that way with this one. Maybe I'm wrong though.
>>68947664
"muh satire, muh irony, muh deep embedded themes, muh worst made movie of my career"
I think Cosmopolis is great but I have never seen anyone give a good reason as to how Maps to the Stars is anything but a complete mess
>>68947639
The acting sucks, Cronenberg completely forgets what tone he's shooting for in the second act, and the nail in the coffin is that the movie is downright boring when it was clearly trying to be high octane
>>68947693
>I've only seen Mulholland Dr by Lynch, and I thought it was alright but I definitely think it's overrated because of how it stands out.
what the fuck are you even trying to say when you write out words? you have the communication skills of an infant. thank you for admitting that good movies are beyond you though.
>>68947697
>i think cosmopolis is g-
stopped reading. literally explains everything.
>>68947639
I'm actually 22.
I just suck at writing. I'm a stem guy.
Anyway what's there to say other than what I've already said? The dialogue and the characters all felt over the top and caricature-like. The action was bad. There was no mystery, it seemed pretty clear that Tom was actually Joey as soon as the mobster got a bit of screen time. There was nothing to pull me in.
I think it's fair to say at least some of those are the movie's faults, not mine.
>>68947723
The movie is not trying to be "high octane" because Cronenberg does not make movies for babies. The movie is meant to be a meditation on the dangers of the redemption myth that many Hollywood films propagate. It is meant to make us stare in the face of a man who performs horrendous acts of ugly violence and question whether it is possible to forgive this person. It's an investigation into violence, the fact that you think it was meant to be titillating suggests your fundamental incapacity to watch this movie.
>>68947724
What was unclear about what I said?
>>68947697
Maps to the stars isfire
>>68947784
>>68947882
Thank you for proving my point that fans of that movie never bother to articulate what it is that's so good about it.
>>68947852
You said that you think Mulholland Dr. is overrated because it stands out. What does that mean? Please explain.
>>68947902
My post was a joke about bad CGI, looks like you've been baited friend
>>68947050
Completely agree. It also never set up a moral conflict with the protagonist formerly being a gangster. He's shown to be the best dad and husband and small town guy in the world, uses violence reluctantly to save a friend, and now I'm supposed to feel conflicted because he supposedly used to be bad? He's still a good person now and thats all that really matters in my eyes
>>68947566
Spotted the casual.
>>68947902
The film spells out everything at the end. I didn't feel like there was any reason for me to watch it again. So it's the story of a woman dealing with the grief caused by a breakup and how her subconscious tries to rationalise the whole thing.
It was good, but it doesn't really leave me with much, and many people consider it to be an absolute masterpiece.
Maybe I'm just being too harsh on it. I'd definitely give it at least a 7/10.
I think that some people like it a lot because of its style but there isn't too much substance behind it. And, I wasn't a huge fan of the style aspect. So I think it's overrated.
Yeah it is nothing special except for these IMDB kids who idolize Tarantino or Breaking Bad.
>>68947962
That's exactly what the movie is about though. People will unthinkingly accept an extremely violent past because we see them as "reformed." Gangsters who turn to Jesus and become kind and giving and thus we must see them as better individuals. The movie wants to raise questions about this idea by showing us the blood on his hands. This is why the scenes of violence are so gratuitous and unpleasant, they are meant to make it harder for us to be okay with Tom. It doesn't sound like you were engaging with the movie's ideas.
>>68948010
You did not at all clarify your original comment. You've now initiated a new comment.
I think the movie is a masterpiece and I think it's one of the most moving things I've ever watched. It sounds like you watched it, read an interpretation online to demystify it, and then made up your mind about it. I understand that impulse but watching Mulholland Dr. with these ideas in mind is what is essential for the movie. Seeing the love scenes early in the film and being filled with the deep sadness of witnessing a desperate woman's imagined romance with the woman she loved is heartbreaking. Without having that knowledge the first way through the film doesn't have nearly the same emotional impact. Also it's a huge feat that Lynch is able to make the viewer feel so moved and emotionally attached to a character who has her ex-lover assassinated.
>>68947337
Kek. Thanks anon
>>68948018
No, I just don't think those ideas were conveyed well. He's such an excessively great guy before that it takes a lot more than shooting people who are threatening to shoot you to make me feel bad towards him. He needs some flaws to be re-contextualized by his past. From what I remember his flaws only appear after his past comes up, mostly from the stress it causes his family relatiosnhips. As the movie stands all his violence is in defense of himself and his family and entirely justified to me. It's more action movie than critique
I think the movie would have been much better if the opening scene of the murder at the motel was a flashback, like I initially thought when watching it before those characters appeared again. Show him committing a really grisly, senseless murder, then show him being the supposed perfect dad. Now there is conflict.
nice rape scene though
>>68948076
Maybe I should watch it again with that in mind. It's just that the way the story is told doesn't really connect with me as much. You can tell that story to me in a different way and the way it's told is going to change the way I am moved by it or not.
I didn't have to demystify anything, I was pretty sure from the beginning that it was all a dream so it didn't really catch me too much by surprise at any point.
>>68948162
But that is exactly what the movie is trying to do and deliberately so. We are made to love this guy who seems perfect in every way and then we see his past crop up and we have to watch the unbearable tension of seeing which version of himself will end up winning out. We are forced to see that identity is not as stable as we would sometimes like it to be.
Once the flaws in our falsity shine through then things start falling apart.
Why do you think the violence shown is so brutal and vicious? I mean none of that violence is necessary in the movie. Had Tom gone to see his brother then he would have avoided killing all of the men who come to the small town. Instead he can't bear the risk of showing his old self to his wife because he knows it would ruin his life. He's a selfish individual who will do anything to hide the truth from his family and he ultimately fails to achieve this.
>>68948224
That's all well and good but saying things like "this movie is overrated because it stands out" make you sound foolish. That is what I questioned to begin with, not whether you liked the movie or not. Anyway, I think it's a masterpiece and not at all overrated.
>>68948278
Was the violence really that brutal? I mean, he kills people, how do you kill people in a non brutal way?
>Had Tom gone to see his brother then he would have avoided killing all of the men who come to the small town. Instead he can't bear the risk of showing his old self to his wife because he knows it would ruin his life.
Not sure what you mean here.
>>68948278
I can kind of see your point, I guess it just didn't connect with me at all.
>Once the flaws in our falsity shine through then things start falling apart.
I don't think it was false though, he put the past behind him and moved on. He only hid it for fear that others would react poorly and ruin his idyllic new life, but that doesn't mean his new life wasn't great. There's a more interesting theme, the lies everyone tells others to function in life. I'd rather see a film about that without the asinine violent plotlines.
>>68948278
>>68948396
Maybe if Cronenberg hadn't made Viggo do kungfu moves the violence might have actually come off as brutal and I would've felt the emotional impact rather than being confused at why it looked so goofy.
>>68948448
But I mean that's what it is about. The lies that maybe we're telling all the time in trying to form an identity for ourselves and see what version of ourselves works. I really don't think you can say that he's moved on. For all we know the guy murdered countless people, including innocents. That is not something that we should just say "oh it's all gone now that he's a good dad." It's clear how fragile his persona is when he does things like hit his son and yell at his wife/kids.
>>68948396
Dude, if you don't think that violence is brutal then you have been conditioned by action movies. In what world is a close-up of a face that is been blown apart by a gun not brutal? The killings are deliberately so excessive and gratuitous in a way that is meant to make us feel sickened by what we're watching.
And which part was unclear in what I said? If Tom had simply gone with the men and not caused a fuss then he would have avoided killing all of those men. He could have done the honourable thing and gone with them to see his brother but instead he decided to put his family at risk and kill people in the process.
>>68948396
>how do you kill people in a non brutal way
Poison, a bullet through the head
>>68948571
It just felt over the top, to the point where it surpassed brutal and entered farcical territory. If that wasn't the director's intent it's a failure on his part. Those action scenes were poorly directed.
The men were going to kill him, what would've been honourable about that? He ended up choosing his life over his image.
That doesn't seem terribly dishonourable to me.
I felt like he went to see his brother because he has genuinely changed and he was hoping his brother would accept that and forgive him. Or was killing everyone bare handed part of his plan?
Its easy to identify underage and unintelligent posters on this board. This thread is a perfect example.
>>68948703
How did it enter farcical territory? I've now explained why those scenes are so brutal, they serve a clear purpose. They are essential to the thematic intent of the film and Cronenberg's use of violence is subtle, clearly this is the case as you seem to refuse to interpret it correctly.
I believe he goes to see his brother with the hope that he will redeem himself in Edie's eyes by facing his past. That whole sequence is meant to be metaphorical though as we finally see this guy make the decision to face his past without hiding from it anymore. The scene following when he washes his hands out back (note the obvious Christian imagery) followed by the dinner scene is meant to force the audience to ask whether his redemption should be valid.
And yeah, killing everyone bare handed was definitely something he knew he could do if it came down to it. We're shown throughout the movie that he is practically a superhuman when it comes to violence as he takes down multiple armed men earlier in the film bare handed. It wasn't his plan but it was an out that he knew he had. The whole point of this though is that the movie is showing us how easy it is to slip between personas. All it takes is for that scene with his brother to start going in a direction he can't handle as his new respectable dad self and he immediately transitions back to the superkiller. It is meant to make us deeply uncomfortable watching this guy fail so utterly to keep his selves separate, just as it is difficult for all of us to feel as though we are being consistent with who we are all the time.
>>68947466
I love Cronenberg, but his fight choreography is consistently shitty throughout his entire career. You'd think someone with such an interest in violence would get a little better at it.
>>68948456
what kung fu moves, you dipshit?
>>68948515
>For all we know
And for all we know he didn't. That's my point, there's enough leeway given that you can also assume he only killed other gangsters and his rage is just from how stressful this coming up is.
I also think the whole "secret retired super gangster assassin man" thing is inherently ridiculous, and you could have touched on these themes in a way that wasn't so nonsensical and borderline fantasy. Say, Viggo's son learns his father had a dropped conviction for murder decades ago, and can't see his father the same way anymore. It's unclear to the audience if he actually did it but we never know for sure. Something like that. Not this stupid ass shootout plot with an external threat that justifies all the violence committed in the film as self defense, and serves more to titillate the audience than shock it. The finale where he storms the mansion like the end of Scarface is not meant to be brutal and unappealing. It's an action scene.
>>68948861
it's actually one of the more realistic choreos i've seen.
>>68948837
>And yeah, killing everyone bare handed was definitely something he knew he could do if it came down to it.
That seems like a bit of a stretch. His brother even says what the audience is thinking: "How do you fuck that up?"
Fair enough on everything else, that's all good, I still feel like it wasn't properly conveyed.
>>68948864
I made a webm >>68947318
>>68948894
If you actually believe that the violence is meant to be titillating then you are the kind of viewer that Cronenberg is making this movie about. He is concerned about people who watch extremely violent movies and are able to shrug it all off and say "while the violence was in self-defense and they did it to become better people so it's all valid." None of the violence in the film is titillating and if you think it is then you're simply a victim of action movies that treat violence as something that should be titillating.
And the movie goes to great pains to talk about how vicious and brutal Tom's past was. He was such a venomous presence that even the other mob bosses in the city feared him and wanted him gone. At that point in the film it is no longer left up to our interpretation what he could have done in his past. He is made out to be the most vicious person we could possibly imagine.
And no, your plot sounds horrible and like it's made for Oscar bait horseshit.
please dont fite
>>68947050
Dude. It was incognito capeshit, it's a comic book adaptation.
>>68948991
Generally if you want action scenes to have an emotional impact and to feel real you shouldn't film them like the scenes of the same hollywood action flicks that are meant to be titillating.
There are countless films that have violence that really hits you hard, that feels visceral and real. This is not one of them.
>>68948958
yeah, well, that is how real fighting works.
>>68949111
Again you seem to fall over and over into the trap of misinterpretation. The scenes are meant to resemble Hollywood action scenes to a degree because it is commenting on those very scenes. The fact that you cannot see that the movie deliberately lingers on and prolongs horrendously violent images at the end of these sequences suggests that you have seen so many of them that you have lost the ability to tell the difference. If you think the camera lingering on the head that has been split apart and lost its face as blood trails across the floor and there is a gurgling sound emitting from the spilled cartilage is not being used for a purpose then I have no idea what to tell you. You sound as though you have been completely desensitized to violence.
>>68949121
lmao
>choreographed bullshit self defense move gun away
>palm strike to the throat
>judo shoulder crank
>palm strikes to the face with no resistence, guy just standing there letting himself get hit
go train
>>68949200
Not the guy who said that the movie shows real fighting but why do you refuse to accept that some filmmakers will do things for a purpose. The reason the guy does not prevent the multiple palm strikes to his face is because Cronenberg wants to make that gesture look horrifyingly graphic in its repetition and in its victim's failure to prevent any of it being done to him.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life? why are stem people so fucking incapable of any form of critical analysis that probes beneath the surface of what they're watching. You guys always just sound so mentally ill-equipped.
>>68949167
I definitely have been desensitised to violence that doesn't feel real. Who hasn't though? If you watch Machete do you cringe in horror at every head that gets cut off?
I do see that the camera lingers on the gory details, and I did notice that, but that's just not how you get a visceral emotional reaction, at least not out of me.
You're probably right that that's what he was going for, I'm just saying that his execution was poor. Unless I already know that he specifically wants to criticise violent films I will just see it as any other action flick (with a bit more gore)
it's a really bad movie, the acting and pacing is Lifetime tier for 80% of the movie
the last part in Philly is decent
>>68949200
well, what do you train, friendo?
have you ever been in an actual combat situation? have you ever really hurt somebody? tell me, i'm really interested.
also, i second this guy
>>68949251
>>68949251
Look, that could very well be, I'm just saying that if that's the effect he wanted, he went by it the wrong way.
>>68949314
I've been doing muay thai for 4 years. I've been in 4 amateur fights. I've only been in a street fight once.
>>68949311
>Unless I already know that he specifically wants to criticise violent films
dude please stop making it easy to find your opinions worthless. I'm sorry but if you want to watch quality movies you will have to start realizing that they have meanings in them that you need to unpack and discover yourself. They are not going to announce their intentions to you and hold your hand through understanding what they're about.
>>68949385
don't talk big then.
but props for the muay thai, that's a nice sport.
>>68949167
>you interpret it differently than me!
>thus you are misinterpreting it!
If you weren't in conversation with Cronenberg during filming you have no idea what the director's intent truly was. Instead of fairly judging the product for what it literally is you're grasping at straws to fit your own narrative.
>>68947050
>The history of our planet truly is A History of Violence
Jesus Christ, really?
>>68948991
I personally didn't think the action was exciting because I generally don't care about action movies anymore. That's just the vibe I got from this. I think making violence more brutal to appear shocking generally fails. Context is what matters, and in this movies context he shoots two guys holding guns to him on his front lawn then goes to their hideout and kicks more ass. It's graphic and maybe not meant to be exciting maybe but in the context of the film it is. It's treated as a big action setpiece finale, and that's all in Cronenberg's execution. The Taxi Driver shootout has a similar narrative function but never felt that way. It's genuinely unpleasant and unnerving in a way this film's violence never is.
And how is self defense not a valid excise for violence? Maybe that's where we differ, I see it as him going to lengths to save himself/family/identity and you see it as inherently wrong?
>And no, your plot sounds horrible and like it's made for Oscar bait horseshit.
My point was to just hit the same themes without this silly gangster story its subverting. "Perfect dad and husband is actually the most brutal gangster ever, even the boss is scared of him." It's like some anime fanfiction premise. I cannot take it seriously even as subversion because the idea its subverting is just so dumb.
>>68949415
Can you instead just accept the fact that it's just poorly executed? The fact that the meaning was not the message that both me and my friend got is not our fault, it's the film's fault for being confusing. I can't agree with you on this.
>>68949441
I wasn't talking big. That action sequence is ridiculous.
>>68949473
I haven't grasped at a single straw. I've given plausible, reasonable explanations for what I think the movie is about. I have offered analysis of the violence in the film that is grounded on evidence that is practically staring you in the face. You on the other hand have basically said things like "he may have been going for that it it was the wrong way to go about it" without offering an explanation as to why that is the wrong way other than it going over your head.
You need some new friends bro, jfc
>>68949492
>it's the film's fault for being confusing.
the movie is not confusing to anyone with any ability to look beneath a movie's surface though.
I do honestly believe that stem people basically never know how to approach art. That's fine because I don't know shit about the stuff you guys do but you should really stop floundering and saying the movie should have spoonfed you.
Used to always fap to the stairwell sex scene.
>>68949415
>dude stop making it so easy to find your opinions worthless
Please pack your fedora in and head back to /r9k/. Don't forget to use your fingerless gloves for extra grip on the railings so you don't trip over your neckbeard on the way out
Watch The Fly you pleb.
>>68949594
The guy who is saying things like "the director has to announce to me what he's doing" and "it's not my fault if I was confused" is now resorting to throwing out memes in a desperate attempt to save face.
Stay a stem retard for ever my man
>>68949566
You remind me of me when I wanted to sound smart as a 17 year old. Screencap your posts so in 5 years you can see that the blatant logic you thought you were conveying was actually just pretentious vitriol with no substance.
>>68949650
Believe it or not, there's more than one person in this thread who thinks you're a dipshit.
>>68949650
I just got here, but you sound like a dick
This movie was basically another version of Funny Games.
The very last bit is a nice fucked up realistic denouement. Up until the end, it's all one big take on western fascination with violence (it's the backbone of a lot much film, it's a preferred plot mechanism, etc), unlikely characters' impossible capability, and a need to try and make sense of stories where maybe there shouldn't have been any. But, y'know. Here there is. Because.
You're just a pleb
>>68949566
>68949566
Oh shut the fuck up.
I have a STEM degree and am more creative and eloquent than most people I know. Dont try to categorise people. You either have the mental capacity to analyse and interpret art, or you simply want ENTERTAINMENT.
A history of violence is great cinema and as you correctly state, no need to spoonfeed anyone who wouldnt understand regardless.
Thats the beauty of it. "Only God forgives" is the most recent example. People who thought "Drive is a pretty fun film" and went to see OGF were shocked and totally confused.
Anyone capable of not interpreting everything LITERALLY in this hyper-realist era, should honestly have alot to think about when seeing such films.
>>68949566
If my grandma or mother had seen that scene she would've probably found it be incredibly brutal and violent, but someone who watches lots of films is going to be desensitised to the violence because violence is used to convey different messages throughout the medium of film.
There is no way I can remove myself from that context.
If the director deliberately chooses to ignore the fact that different types of onscreen violence send different types of messages that's not my fault.
It's his duty to convey the messages of the story. The message I received was "this is a goofy action scene" not "this is a brutal and violent scene, look at the implications it has on the character". There are tons of films that have violent scenes that are really brutal and rock you to the core. If Cronenberg was going with brutal, then maybe he should have done the scene differently.
The fact that two people watching this film both had the same reaction to it means there's clearly something wrong with the message.
>>68949668
>pretentious vitriol with no substance
kek, A History of Violence fans have the same traits as A History of Violence.
>>68949566
>>68949764
also those other people weren't me (OP)
>>68949739
Both versions of Funny Games are leagues better than this movie
>>68949820
Won't disagree with you there, bro.
Still this is a pretty good movie :3
>>68949764
>The fact that two people watching this film both had the same reaction to it means there's clearly something wrong with the message.
how on earth can you think that is reasonable? when Vertigo came out most people didn't like it and didn't understand it. does that mean they were correct? no, it means that sometimes movies are subtle and complicated and that it takes work to get inside of them and they shouldn't be dismissed just because of gut instinct.
also I watch about 8-10 movies a week and I am still disgusted by the violence in this movie every time I watch it. I'm sorry to tell you but extremely violent actioners aren't the norm for quality films. The movies I watch don't often have much violence in them and when they do it is always used for a purpose. Just because you have been saturated by John Woo movies doesn't mean that makes the violence in Cronenberg's movie less shocking. It is you with the desensitization and that is in no way the movie's fault.
>>68949764
Thats because you dont know what violence is really like in real life.
>>68949820
No they're not at all. Funny Games is one of Haneke's weakest movies. I love how the entire point of the movies is to resist titillation and then Haneke thought filming Naomi Watts jumping around in lingerie was a good choice. He fucked up his own message. The original Funny Games is pretty good but it doesn't really compare to History of Violence I don't think.
Everyone praising this movie is reading so much into it that simply isn't there. Its like you're taking bad acting and directing as some sort of Lynchian meta-game. Admittedly the beginning shares some similarities to a movie like Blue Velvet, but the middle just becomes a schlock of bad acting and forced drama and the end is literally a Marvel tier shootout, complete with superhuman reflex abilities for the main character and FUCKING SLO-MO
It's not ironically bad. There's no hidden message when you peel back the bad or the inconsistency. Its just plain bad.
>>68949885
>I am still disgusted by the violence in this movie every time I watch it.
I'm just saying that this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr-ReFsqKBQ
is different from this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VchTuRWMw5Q
>>68949903
I've spent too much time on liveleak, does that count?
>>68947639
to be honest, if your movie is a serious drama about violence, that is a legitimate complaint to have.
Me, I never got the praise for the movie. I thought it was cool when it started with the idea of this all american family man being mistaken for a gangster (or whatever he was, havent seen the movie in a while), and seeing this paranoia he went through as this creepy guy is following him and his family, and I thought the movie was going to be about, regardless of whether he was the real guy or not, the lengths he would go to save his family through the violence he had inside of him.
but then it turns out he is the gangster, he gets into really over the top, cheesy fights, with some really bad practical effects, and I just gave up any hope. I dunno, maybe Im missing something, but I just thought it messed up a truly cool set up.
and really, I dont think seeing Viggo 69ing his wife was necessary, that was really awkward.
>>68949945
>I love how the entire point of the movies is to resist titillation and then Haneke thought filming Naomi Watts jumping around in lingerie was a good choice. He fucked up his own message
Done. I can't deal with how unremorsefully wrong you are. Mark 4/30/2016 down in your calendar as another victory against anon via mind break
>>68947050
It's been years since I watched this but there are two things I remember.
One, it was a strangely tense and dark film -considering the absence of actual violence for a greater part.
Two, I didn't know nor notice that it was a Cronenberg film, and I was a little confused when I found out, since it wasn't what I considered very 'cronenbergish' at the time. That was before I watched that clusterfuck that was the film about Freud and the masterpiece that was Eastern Promises. To this day I haven't seen Cosmopolis, but I guess there is some 'realistic turn' in his filmmaking.
Anyway, I might rewatch it at some point, if I ever have the time.
>>68950132
>I can't deal with how unremorsefully wrong you are
what are you trying to convey here? is English your second language by any chance?
>>68947050
it's overrated shit OP
the pacing is just awful.
>>68950182
Sometimes when people are wrong they repent at least a little bit, admit some small fault or acknowledge some correction. But you, you've hijacked a bus made of wrong, put a brick on the gas pedal and steered yourself on a course for a head on collision with a wall made of wrong, laughing your head off in ecstasy the entire time.
>>68950268
By making one comment about a mediocre Haneke movie?
Funny Games is so intellectually uninteresting. It barely has anything to say.
>>68949764
>>68950099
I agree with all of this
>>68949885
Your Vertigo point is nonsense, this isn't some groundbreaking new cinema, its an argument about what constitutes brutal violence and how it should be portrayed effectively
Completely different style of filmmaking, but compare it to the deadpan violence in Takeshi Kitano's films. There are no cool palm strikes and effortless gunfights there. It's all extremely blunt and matter of fact, and done to reflect the dead-inside numbness his characters feel. That is style matching theme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQVJ5JDGrpo
I don't get that at all from A History of Violence. This is standard "hollwood brutal". A bit more blood and some realistic grunting, but he still snaps a man's neck with his hands and the villain does the "uh oh" face before he gets shot. It's completely revved up to be exciting on some level. Look how many perfect hits he lands on these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhIEAiDyM20
>>68947050
this is why you should stick to directors that actually know how to make interesting and entertaining movies, like the Coen Brothers, Clint Eastwood, or Martin Scorsese.
Chronenberg is a meme director who is name-dropped by insecure film students who strive to seem "Patrician" amongst their peers. There's a reason he's obscure.
>>68950508
this thread is impossible to read. who is baiting who?
>>68950541
I'm not baiting anybody. Do you really think the directors I listed are bait? If so, you need to reevaluate your knowledge of filmmaking.
>>68950508
>interesting and entertaining movies
>Chronenberg is a meme director who is name-dropped by insecure film students who strive to seem "Patrician" amongst their peers. There's a reason he's obscure.
>Chronenberg
>meme director
>insecure film students
>obscure
how is it possible that none of this is bait
>>68947318
Yeah just watch Videodrome or The Fly instead
>>68950508
This is bait.
Why would anyone make a movie about the history of violins?
>>68950723
>>68950932
Chronenberg is an irrelevant entry-level middle-of-the-road director of mediocre films.
>>68951015
You're just talking fucking taste here. Same thing could be said about your sucking it up to Eastwood, fanboy.
>>68951111
fair enough, nice quads.
>>68949251
>>68949513
Why do you Cronenberg dickriders craft these unnecessarily complex yet plausible rationalisations rather than just accepting the more simple and obvious explanation (i.e. it was sloppy direction)?
>>68947050
>This felt like a straight to dvd movie, why does it get any praise?
Fun fact, A History of Violence was the last movie commercially released on VHS.
>>68950930
Yall niggas need to quit forgetting about Naked Lunch
>>68951015
This too is bait. He's made some doozies (such as this thread's subject matter) but the quality of his best films more than make up for them. A ton of modern horror and thriller is directly influenced by his work in the 80s and 90s
>>68951832
Fuck, keep forgetting about eXistenz and Scanners too. eXistenz isn't perfect but is a pretty novel movie and has his famous body gross out. So all in all
>Videodrome
>The Fly
>Naked Lunch
>eXistenz
>Scanners
Are all his best work that contain his defining style. Am I missing any others?
Regardless, movies like this just go to show how he fell out of touch in the transition from 90s to 2000s.
>>68947050
>as the movie went on we both felt like we were watching a bad horror movie
oh no he's retarded
>>68947522
>This movie was Cronenberg doing his best Bay impression
he was adapting someone else's graphic novel and you're wetting your pants over how it wasn't true kino. please end your friend's existence and then your own before you shitpost again
>>68947847
holy shit this
>>68948456
>if Cronenberg hadn't made Viggo do kungfu moves
IT'S CANON TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT, KEEP WHINING THAT CRONENBERG DIDN'T MAKE THE MOVIE YOU WANTED
>>68948278
>none of that violence is necessary in the movie
ConfusedMatthew everyone
>>68949080
> muh literature
>>68947050
This was the movie that made me lose faith in Rotten Tomatoes. What the fuck was that even.
>>68949585
>Used to always fap to the stairwell sex scene.
The house was a real house and Bello/Mortensen asked the stunt coordinator if they could somehow pad the stairs to make it less brutal on their asses. The stunt dude thought that was hilarious before telling them "no"
>>68947050
OP, you are well articulated and clearly capable of forming your own thoughts. I agree with your points, actually, but that's besides the point. Anyone calling you pleb is retarded. You've formed your own opinion and are able to defend it. That's all you can do
>>68952716
>and are able to defend it
By doing what, secondguessing a director he's never followed and then arguing that because he and his cocksleeve didn't get it it must be a bad film?
>>68952576
>faith in Rotten Tomatoes
you're everything wrong with /tv/
leave now you stain
>>68950508
>Chronenberg is a meme director
People like you are the most annoying fuckers on this board. Not everything you dislike is a meme.
>he's obscure.
This has to be bait, he's one of the most beloved horror directors of the 80s.
>>68947050
>being this dumb
Most realistic violence I've ever seen.
