MovieChat Forums > Boxing Helena (1993) Discussion > What was it about this movie that made i...

What was it about this movie that made it so horrible to you?


I just finished watching this movie again. Mostly to critique it because of some of the comments made on this board about it. It's not the best movie I've ever seen, but it HARDLY rates as one of the worst either. To those of you who hated it, what about it was so terrible? It had a plot and the leading characters where both lovely to look at, as were the set designs. I could have done without the music - especially the thinly veiled operatic reference to "A Room With A View" and I really didn't care for the way it ended, but all an all it was entertaining (to me).

I don't think some of you "got it". This was supposed to be an erotic movie. A twisted erotic movie. A Harlequin novel. Since it was written by a women it was told from a female point of view - you could tell by the dialogue and the way in which Nick was portrayed that a women wrote it. It was not meant to be "Gone with the Wind". It was intended to titillate (sp?) Just that. Take a taboo subject put two lovely people in a mansion - one obsessed and twisted -the other jaded and arrogant - and see what happens.

Not only that, any movie with the Julian Sands in it CAN'T be all bad. Talk about lovely legs and gorgeous hair. Day-um!

reply

I'm with you. I see how others can watch the movie and consider it weird. Yeah, even I have always defined it as 1 point short of technically being a porno-flick (the only reason it's not is because there's a plot and only 3 or 4 sex scenes). But when you think about the story and the characters, and when you learn to overlook the sex scenes, the movie is actually very interesting.

It's beauty and the beast (only the beast is the woman and the man is a nerd HAHA); the man wants to get the girl but they just can't get along until they're literally stuck together for a while.

Okay, okay! So beauty and the beast may not be the best comparison...but I've learned to like it over the years. And I think all of the actors in the movie were great choices and did great jobs of portraying their characters.

reply

Ditto what you just said. Comparing it to Beauty and the Beast isn't really a stretch when you think about it. Also, there have been many, many movies made since this one came out in '93; but how many of them are still in demand? I rented it at York Video - and had to wait almost a month before I could get it. So people are still want to see it.

Julian is such a good actor. Too bad he can't get really good roles.

reply

I think he's gotten some very cool roles. I like him in Arachnaphobia! Also, if you're into weird, random movies, The Loss Of Sexual Innocense was pretty good. (I admit, not too many people are into movies like that; it's a bit odd and graphic. I'd say the most typical fans are those odd coffee-house living college students and Shakespeare fans! :o)

But most of all, have you seen Ocean's 13? It's a great movie! If you like the first one (Ocean's Eleven), you'll really like this one, especially because it's got Julian in it! As the beginning credits stated, it's "the movie we should have done LAST TIME." Julian Sands plays a brainy security guy for Al Pacino. Very funny.

True, he hasn't done all that many movies (I've never caught any of the TV shows that he's been in), but I do love any opportunity of watching him, even if they are small parts.

reply

I haven't seen Ocean's 13, but perhaps I'll rent it this weekend. Not really into weird films per se, but I'll see if I can find The Loss of Sexual Innocense as well. I don't like porn, but do enjoy erotic films --- there IS a difference - and I categorize Boxing Helena as an erotic film.

I watch a lot of foriegn films and limited distribution films and recently saw Julian in an Italian film entitled "Nght Sun". I enjoyed it, even though it didn't really have a lot of action in it. He's gorgeous even with brown hair, which he had in this film.

I enjoy watching him (and hearing his voice) very much so I'll be on the look out for more films he's appeared in.

Thanks for the suggestions.

reply

I agree...it's well done and freakishly delicious. I think the people who don't like it or don't "get it" would be your southern baptist or mid west bible belters and/or non creative types. You know..the real sexually oppressed part of America.

Which means about 65% of Americans.

reply

i think Boxing Helena is a fantastic film just because of the truly unique atmosphere it creates. The sets, the music, and whole intimacy sentiment that pushes the film along. It is unlike any film I've ever seen...but...it strictly has to do with how interesting the dynamic is between Julian Sands and Sherilyn Fenn. Both are quite beautiful human beings and how they got into this horrifying yet strangely erotic situation is fascinating.

There are definitely some pretty poorly scripted and executed ideas in this film...namely the ending...but's one of those films that you can't shake the next morning when you wake up. It's one of those creations, if mentioned at a social gathering, that brings some strong opinions just based on plot description alone. It hits everyone's emotions differently.

reply

I agree with you rosenlba and you beautifully expressed my sentiments exactly. This film is truly unique and that's probably why I enjoyed it. It was something different --- not the formula films that Hollywood normally shoves down out throats.

reply

Ok.... takes deep breath....

The leading guy had the greasiest hair I've ever seen on a leading man. How anyone can find that attractive is beyond me.

Helena was such a completely shallow, vaccuous and spiteful bitch it was impossible to have any sympathy for her.

The leading guy was so creepy, awkward and fey that it was impossible to identify and have empathy with him.

This film is NOT, I repeat NOT erotic. It tries to be, but it ends up looking like a cheap softcore Penthouse video from the 80s.

The dialogue is awful.

Garfunkel's hair.

Paxton.

The "I appear to be at a party with influential and affluent people who are complete strangers to me. What shall I do? Oh I know, I'll just walk through the fountain, no-one will find it odd" scene.

I could go on but life is short.

"This is Tony Pine... he's epileptic"

reply

Nick's hair wasn't what scared me off...it was his creepy personality (a guy who would cut off a woman he love's legs and hold her hostage!)

We weren't supposed to feel sympathy for Helena. We were supposed to feel sorry for Nick BECAUSE of her mean attitude.

Paxton was awesome. It was Alien meets Big Love ("Game over man...Game Over!")

She walked through the fountain on purpose; specifically because it WAS odd. She was trying to do something so inappropriate that Nick wouldn't see her anymore...to scare her off.

I could go on, but you're obviously too dumb to get this movie.

reply

Nick was such a wet sock that noone could feel sympathy for him, we spent the whole movie cursing his spinelessness. Bill Paxton was a completely unbelievable tool of a character with tiny, ridiculous shirts and a stupid haircut that makes his character look like poor white trash even though he's got a nice car.
The fountain scene was the most cliche piece-of-ass stupid waste of slow motion I've ever seen and the ending to the movie was a spit in the face to anyone's intelligence. If everything was a dream then why the hell are we following Bill Paxton's character around, why is he selectively dreaming about other people, in other parts of the town?

Bill Paxton trying to hide behind a 2 foot tall, seethrough shrub IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEBODY'S FRONT LAWN?! And that's his tactic for spying on someone's house yet he has enough intelligence to be in charge of "employees".

Every main character in the movie was an idiot, with his girlfriend getting pissed at him at the start of the movie and storming out then coming back and saying she missed him before gobbling his manhood 2 minutes after getting into the house, his ridiculous climax after she takes her shirt off, followed by her telling him that 'it's all sweet, that happens all the time, let me grab you something to drink!' Yeah I can see how she must have missed him terribly, he's such a catch.

I must just be an idiot though, cause I didn't see how all these completely unbelievable characters and a gaping plot hole of an ending didn't all meld together to create an intelligent and engaging film worthy of deep contemplation.

"By the time i turned all my clocks back, my ass had turned to jello!" - TourettesGuy

reply

yeah..and.....?

How does hair grease detract from the story except by your self-dominated materialistic viewpoint. People used hair grease from 1950-1989. Why is that gross?

If Helena was not shallow how would you create tension and her agressiveness toward him?

The leading guy was cute...depends on on what you like. If you don't like it..doesn't mean other women don't...or other gay men.

Not erotic?..speak for yourself. Not everything erotic happens in Cinemax After Dark movie. Sometimes there is intellectual eroticism.

Dialogue. Everyone speaks differently. The dialog in the north is different from the south.

SPOILER ALERT: I did not see Garfunkel in this movie.

Quotes from the movie = Uhmm...yeah...peoples voice over in their minds might work differently than yours.

reply

Why are you jumping on people's posts being a pissy little know it all and finding it so hard to accept that some of us didn't enjoy the movie and found it "horrible"? Opinions are like anuses, we've all got one. Not everyone is going to agree with you. If you learned this life lesson you may find you'll not get so angsty and provocative when people don't agree with your opinions. And for the record, the title of this thread is What was it about this movie that made it so horrible to you?... the whole reason people are posting in this thread is to list what they didn't like about the movie. I know it's probably a difficult concept for you to assimilate but some of us have different tastes and opinions than you, oh great movie sage.

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future

reply

It was great

reply

Nick has an English accent, despite the fact (with which we are made all too familiar) that he grew up with his American mother in America. This is one painfully apparent inconsistency among others, which flags the eeriness of "Boxing Helena" as belonging to its shocking incompetencies, rather than to any ironic subtext that could only ostensibly excuse the film from its retarded characters, whose very personalities are even less likely than the absurd effects of the Doctor's obsessions. Lynch's decision to conclude with such a grotesque effort toward surprise, and viewer engagement, ultimately reveals her paranoia about audiences' ability to explain, thus contradicting any rationalization that prior to or following the twist, a deeper comment was intended, that characters were only cartoons and not entities whose dreams and fascinations were identifiable.

reply

Here's a partial list:

- The lack of any sympathetic or interesting characters
- The profound anti-woman theme
- The painfully forced symbolism (i.e. the bird in the cage, the statue of Venus)
- The ending, the less said about that the better

reply

The terrible acting, the fact that every other scene was a music video, and the cheesiness of soft-core porn.

reply

No it wasn't. You think The Outsiders was told from a female point of view because a woman wrote it? Because I'm pretty sure Ponyboy is, you know, a boy. And frankly, if you find a movie in which a man cuts off a woman's arms and legs and makes her completely dependent on him erotic or titillating you have strange definitions of both those words. It failed in the mission you've ascribed to it, it was poorly written, creepy and stupid.

reply

it seemed like an attempt of pornography that went astray. you manged to finish it, i couldn't, i tried twice, you read the cover you think that this is a piece of art when it's a piece of rubbish. how did madonna managed to get away from it, very clever girl! the acting is poor the only cool thing is the guy in the start making love to helena, and they got rid of him fast, i'm not sure, i don't think i managed to reach the half of it, i have a sensitive mind it could explode.

reply

I don't consider it "erotic" aside from Sherilyn Fenn being very hot. But this movie demonstrates a lot of people's complete inability to grasp METAPHOR. The story is obviously very ridiculous. But aren't there men who metaphorically reduce women to a pair of breasts and an ass? Aren't there men who try to absolutely control women even if they don't literally take it to this extreme? And ironically don't these men in some ways become slaves themselves as they give all their power to another person, which is something that can never truly be possessed.

Of course, Julian Sands is a pathetic douchebag, but he is SUPPOSED TO BE (in this movie anyway). The girl has complete power over him even with no arms and legs. But why are people unable to separate a movie about a pathetic misogynist from MISOGYNY. If this were really misogynistic movie, the woman would have been a simpering victim and the man would have had all the power, not the reverse.

I didn't like the chickensh!t ending, but most people at the time couldn't handle the movie as it was.

reply