MovieChat Forums > Hurlyburly (1998) Discussion > by coke heads, for coke heads

by coke heads, for coke heads


i dont mean to trash this movie, i can see why some people might like it, but it certainly wasnt for me. i only watched it because a friend gave it his strongest recomendation (incidentally, he has the personality/habits to fit right in with this movie).

as it is, this movie was about as unwatchable as it gets for me, which is unfortunate because i think very highly of penn. basically, to me, this was a bunch of masturbatory adolescent chauvinism from 'woe is me' rich kids with absolutely nothing to say.

for those deciding on whether to see it, unless you think you might identify with the main characters, this movie probably isnt for you.

reply


Rather, unless you have the capacity to identify with characters that aren't similar to yourself, don't see this movie.

"a bunch of masturbatory adolescent chauvinism from 'woe is me' rich kids with absolutely nothing to say"?

Interesting. Because movies like Cruel Intentions, anything "Twilight" or, for that matter, anything "Teen Disney" comes to mind when I read your quote.

It probably increases your interest in this movie/play if you can identify with one (or any of the main characters) but I suspect the reason you didn't find anything in this film is because you simply misunderstood the movie, or didn't finish it, or both.

This movie deals with hedonism, moral depravity, and greed (among other things) but it doesn't indulge itself in it-- nor does it appeal to its audience based on those superficial characteristics alone. That's where you miss the point. The viewer gets to watch each and every one of these characters experience the consequence of their own actions. There's nothing "masturbatory" about that. In the end nothing is glorified, but you seem to imply that this "masturbatory" glorification is grounds for the appeal of this movie. Yes, you get to watch these characters partake in a number of "immoral" actions and deeds, but there is more to it than that. You witness each character's rise and fall-- or maybe just their decent-- but to accuse the movie (or play) of appealing to its audience based on the opportunity to vicariously experience this deprivation along with them is ridiculous. You may not like the characters but often that's a sign the director/writer has done something right.

There's no quick, gimmicky about-face at the end. Everything slowly falls apart expertly. I can't imagine anyone taking any pleasure out of a gluttonous kinship with any of these roles. Most movies have villains. These characters are the "villains" in Hurlyburly. Their only victims are themselves. Unless it's done badly, movies are rarely criticized for creating convincing, sordid villains. There's so much **** out there that does exactly what you accuse this movie of doing, but this isn't the case. It doesn't take you on a "masturbatory" ride for the thrill of it. Their pleasure and their suffering is presented proportionally. Neither, are these "rich kids". These characters have chosen these lives for themselves-- they weren't given a silver spoon and their parent's safety net to play with. They bear the full responsibility for their actions. There's a big difference between the two. "By coke-heads, for coke-heads" is an adolescent subject title itself, and your post is a shallow critique that reads as if you didn't even finish the movie. Or, more likely, as I first stated- you simply don't posses the capacity to identify with characters or stereotypes unlike your own.



reply

[deleted]

Why do people feel the need to be so mean and insulting when disagreeing with someone on IMDB?

reply


"Basically, to me, this was a bunch of masturbatory adolescent chauvinism from 'woe is me' rich kids with absolutely nothing to say."

_________________


Slander without explanation or example is insulting. If the same one sentence opinion/synopsis were levied on a movie you hold in regard there's a chance you'd take offense.



reply

No, I can promise you I wouldn't. If it was a film I made myself, maybe. But if someone doesn't like a film I enjoyed (and this happens often), well, that's just a difference of opinion. It says nothing about who we are as people and it doesn't make either of us wrong.

reply

[deleted]

Oh no! You've called me ludicrous! SOB SOB SOB!!!!!

No, I don't think that is the implication. I think a person would have to be excessively sensitive to feel insulted by the opinion of someone who they have never met or communicated with, and who is not even thinking about you (the fan of the film) when they make their comment. I mean do you really spend the rest of the day in a bad mood because someone has slighted something you like? Surely you completely forget about the silly argument as soon as you turn your computer off. And anyway, the original poster didn't SAY any of those things like stupid or pointless, in fact he went out of his way to say "i dont mean to trash this movie, i can see why some people might like it, but it certainly wasnt for me."

Mind you, an acquaintance was once horribly offended by me saying that Moulin Rouge was a bad film. I didn't even know she liked it, and I didn't go off into a big rant or anything, but after that she never spoke to me again. Isn't that bizarre?

reply

[deleted]

Oh, Hurly Burly was OK. I've certainly seen worse. And it cost me 25p anyway (set of 4 films for £1), so I can hardly complain. Eye Of The Beholder was another of the films in the set though and THAT was pretty bad.

reply

[deleted]

Nightwatch is a remake of a German film. The German film is less glossy, grittier, but the acting is worse.

reply

The original Nightwatch is Danish.

And yes, I hated this movie too.

reply

Yeah but have you watched it on coke?

reply

A challenging and amazing film. The OP should stick to reviewing movies where the moral quandaries of the characters behavior will not affect his feeling for what the movie is trying to do. A powerful portrait of fading masculinity that is both comedic and tragic. The cast is as good as it gets.

reply

[deleted]