MovieChat Forums > The War Zone (1999) Discussion > sicko movie, sick child porn, these jerk...

sicko movie, sick child porn, these jerks should go to jail

posted 18 years ago by bruce-129
61 replies | jump to latest

These Hollywood perverts really just do not know where to stop.
They must just be laughing at everyone. I'm no born again
Christian, but the warped mind that created this movie and
puts it out there as some kind of anti-abuse dedicated to
stop porn is really mentally sick.

Why are all the scenes so careful to go around the subject,
and all the sex scenes so tenderly and pornographically
filmed ... this was someones joke attempt to get this vomitorium
subject matter passed by the censors.

Tim Roth should be put in stockades while child-abuse victims
should get the right to go up and smack him and pelt him with
rotted food items, or a baseball bat. What a perv.

I guess there could exist a movie that depicts child abuse and
incest in some real and socially useful way, but this movie is
so disgusting and hypoctical ... all through the movie everyone
has perfect makeup and the scenes are so "airbrushed" and glossy,
while I guess killing the father at the end is supposed to make
up for the peepshow throughout the movie.

What artists, what artistic risks, breaking new ground and pushing
the envelope ... bleck, what a sick piece of garbage this movie
is.

reply

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

You're missing the point, but you won't get it anyway. Typical mainstream response.

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

reply

[–] combatreview 18 years ago

I think that's kind of harsh on mainstream viewers actually. Though as you say, it's unlikely that the original poster would change their view, however the matter was explained to them.

I'm quite startled that this film is described as 'pornographic', however - this suggests that either the poster has never seen a porn film with which they can compare, or that they found those hideous scenes in some some way erotically stimulating and assumed that was the director's intention. Hopefully it's the former.

In any case, the reality is that I have heard a number of critiques of this film from people who have themselves been abused, and so far they have invariably regarded this film as being valuable and genuine.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

I think your post is pompous BS. I am not exactly any kind of mainstream
viewer, which led me to this movie to begin with ... but don't let that
stop you in your exhuberance to pigeonhole me. I really could care less.

This film IS pornographic in the way that violent movies are pornographic.
And of course you have to thrown onto me that I am getting "erotically
stimulated" when you are the one who is stimulated by being such a
twisted liar.

Sure, there are lots of movies about abuse, and lots of celebrities and
not single celebrity will say anything negative about another celebrity
or their work, just like a doctor does not speak badly of other doctors,
it is professional courtesy, ... that and the fact that is everyone's
balloons were punctured and it was revealed how pathetic and stupid most
movies are people would just stop going to see them.

Probably why I was reading the paper the other day and Ebert rated
"The Devil's Rejects" a 3 out of 4. That guy has his head permanently
stuck up his rear end ... and you have the same affliction ... you and
the previous poster.

It would be very interesting to see what you got out of that movie,
since neither of you bothered to say ... of course blaming it on me,
I wouldn't get it.

Yeah, of course.

reply

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

I shoudn't respond at all, since anything that isn't in agreeance will be deemed that I support this "sicko ad dhfhilacld apron jekrjkad jm' movie.

The subject matter is very controversial, so does that mean it's exploiting it? Apparently yes.

And if parts are seen as 'pornographic', well how do you film a sex scene any other way if you want to tell the truth?

I'm guessing IN THE COMPANY OF MEN is a terrible movie as well. And TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is bad because we don't agree with the ideology. You don't have to like the characters or their beliefs in order for the movie to be good. Any movie about incest is a bad movie, right?

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

> Any movie about incest is a bad movie, right?

That was not my point ... I was saying I do not think
"The War Zone" was a good movie. I think it used the
subject matter to be controversial and gain an audience
without exploring or explaining or doing much of anything
except filming some sicko scenes.

It's a touchy subject, and people's taste in movies is
as well. I don't care to get into a fight, I'm just
expresssing my POV.

AS far as the sex scene, it just happens, there is no point
to it because all it does is show it, it does not explain
why, or how, or what the two people think or feel about it.
I suppose we can guess, but why have the scene in the movie
at all unless it is germane to the movie and the plot and
the characters?

It was not. There is no how this happened, or was allowed
to happen, why no one guesses it happened, or had seen it.
Why did the girl put up with it. And then just the murder.

It is like the same movie we see over and over justifying
violence. The formula is ... show the happy family, the
beautiful wife, the kids for a about 5 minutes, the kill
them off, by a monster, murderer, evildoers, aliens, etc,
then sit back for an hour and a half while the hero
takes violent revenge.

I should think people would be hip to this by now, and to
a large degree bored by it.

reply

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

My POV is that you are making a big mistake on this one. Roth says in his director's commentary that his father was a victim of abuse, and he even dedicated the movie to him. He is very sincere and caring about his characters. I can't believe someone would claim he's making a porno movie. He is way above childish and child exploitation. I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle.

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

I don't think Roth perhaps intended to make a porno movie,
nor is that what it is, but I think it was not handled well.
I was being facetious about it being a porno movie, but I
do not think that just because Roth has some kind of
license to have a reason to exploit such material that
he did it in a meaningful way, so to me it just seems
like that, exploitive and misses its mark.

reply

[–] combatreview 18 years ago

If you would be kind enough to read my post again, you would see that I was saying three things;

1. An objection to this film is not a defect of 'mainstream' audiences, not least since it implies that mainstream equals complete inability to cope with challenging subject matter, and it is unfair to say that.

2. I said you were unlikely to change your point of view - and I'm correct about that, aren't I? Your personal reaction to this film is a strong one, and your view is sufficiently strongly-held that you are unlikely to be swayed by any argument from somebody who disagrees. Is this not the case?

3. I stand entirely by the pornography point. Pornography is the use of sexual imagery for titillation. My point was that you really DIDN'T find those scenes titillating, did you? So how do you then define it as porn? Porn is not simply the depiction of sexual behaviour - if it were, then ANY depiction of sexuality would qualify, and it would instantly become impossible to depict sexual violence without being subject to the accusation - and Shakespeare would become porn.

>>>This film IS pornographic in the way that violent movies are pornographic.

Which violent movies? There is a world of difference between an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and Schindler's List. Certainly, the violence in some films is effectively the point of watching e.g. some horror and action movies, The Devil's Rejects for sure - but in other films it's there for a reason - we surely can't generalise and say that ALL depictions of shocking behaviour are exploitative and pornographic? I would actually say that a FAILURE to depict these things in their full ugliness is a lot closer to pornography, in that it allows horrible events to become comfortable and watchable.

I'd certainly agree that effectively pornographic depictions of rape exist - but usually they appear in films that don't have the guts to be truly ugly the way this one does (e.g. The General's Daughter with it's soft-focus gang-rape). I honestly don't see how the director could be accused of producing a film that exploits images of the female body - with the exception of one scene in Jesse's bedroom, and that ENTIRELY has a point, i.e. the power games Jesse is playing with her brother, and the non-existence of certain sexual taboos for her.

>>>It would be very interesting to see what you got out of that movie

I got a better understanding of why my girlfriend was so messed up. As I say, I'm assured that this film is very realistic.

I also appreciated four excellent performances by the leads. I got emotionally battered by the film, which wasn't nice, but it was never meant to be.

I found the film to be far from pointless or exploitative; it's a very sensitive study of distorted emotional relationships in a family that, at first glance, is healthy and normal. It doesn't get into 'motivation', but why should it? The point is that, like the son, we're suddenly discovering this appalling secret and having to ask questions about it. We learn far more about the subject by watching these characters and their reactions - by empathy with them as realistic human beings - than we would from any attempt to rationally explain an irrational situation as if it was the definite inevitable product of a sequence of events. Indeed, Roth has clearly stated that he didn't want to imply that if X, Y, and Z happen to a person, then they turn out to be an abuser, because it's both lazy psychology and unfair on survivors. As mentioned, Roth's father was abused, but he did not grow into an abuser himself, and so Roth wanted to excise the element of the book that implies that abused children have to become abusers themselves. Apart from anything else, it feels like too easy an explanation for what is a complicated issue.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

I am fine with however you want to think of this movie, it doesn't
bother me. I'm not sure I can agree with you, but I appreciate
you trying to explain what you got out of it since you obviously
did.

My confusion is that if Roth did not show any series of events as
you mention, and he does not know what causes the situation, and
the movie looks like a normal family ... just what could he have
had to say, except showing pictures, and why is that somehow
theraputic for someone to see if it does not make anything more
clear?

If it is not distorted emotional relationships that cause something
like this, or if they are the result of something like this ... in
fact you say Roth does not want to say anything like that, because
no one knows.

In the same way any movie with any nudity gets attention on the
Internet ... you can see the idiot posts from people who just want
to know exactly what was shown in what movie to what degree for
how long ... so I just think this movie probably attracted a lot
more of that than anyone looking to get something out of it based
on anything it could intelligently say about child abuse, rape or
incest. And by the way it is a really cheap shot to accuse me of
being titillating ... that is like a when are you going to stop
beating your wife question and shows hostility and intellectual
dishonesty in my opinion.

In fact I think it is abnormal for the son to kill the father over
something like that ... but I don't know. I would bet that statistically
it just does not happen very often, and in fact if someone ends up
getting violent it would be the victim, and that probably the victim
would turn their feelings in on themself. So to me this movie does not
accurately portray much about people simple or complicated.

So ... I just question the realism, value, and study behind this movie.
If you enjoyed it, or got something out of it, great, I don't say
you have to agree with me.

reply

[–] combatreview 18 years ago

>>>My confusion is that if Roth did not show any series of events as you mention, and he does not know what causes the situation, and the movie looks like a normal family ... just what could he have had to say

I don't follow your problem with this. In the last ten years I've known somewhere between 20 and 30 women and girls who've been raped, assaulted, the victim of incest or incestuous advances or in some other way sexually abused. I met none of these people in a professional context.

In a couple of cases I met fathers or uncles responsible for abusing daughters or neices, and you can be quite sure that they were apparently normal from the outside. That's how they get away with it. One guy had been having an affair with his neice, who was the age of his youngest daughter, while she was exactly Jess's age, slightly younger. And I even found myself liking him, despite knowing of this at-the-very-least-highly-questionable behaviour, and the impact it had on his daughter, who knew about it. These people don't have labels on them, and that is EMPHATICALLY the point being made by the 'normality' of the family in The War Zone.

The father character in particular is all about dichotomy - the film is not saying that a normal person is capable of these terrible acts, it is more complicated and challenging than this. It is suggesting that a man may be a vile abuser of his own children and yet ALSO be a loving father. It is precisely this confusion that is the epicentre of Tom's emotional devastation, and it is his inability to accept that his father could be both these things that is the source of his feelings of betrayal, and makes him hate the man enough to stab that knife home.

>>>why is that somehow theraputic for someone to see if it does not make anything more clear?

The film is not therapy, it is discussion. The idea that the film has to explain what it depicts also strikes me as missing the point enormously. Good films don't tell the viewers what to think, they encourage the audience to ask questions and enquire about what they are seeing. This is not a film about the causes of child abuse anymore than Schindler's List is a film about the causes of racial hatred. Maybe Schindler would be better if it were, but that's not the intent.

>>>If it is not distorted emotional relationships that cause something like this, or if they are the result of something like this ... in fact you say Roth does not want to say anything like that, because no one knows.

Indeed. But if the causes are nebulous, the effects are not, and this film is about effects. It is not attempting to find the unanswer to an unanswered question.

>>>I just think this movie probably attracted a lot more of that than anyone looking to get something out of it based on anything it could intelligently say about child abuse

Well, I definitely agree that there are people interested in this film because they wish to find pornography in it, but that does not make it pornography. Famously, one serial killer used the Emperor's attack on Luke Skywalker in Return Of The Jedi as pornography because of the older-man/young-boy sadism thing going on in those scenes. Clearly, however, that was because the person watching the film was willing to find pornography in otherwise innocuous material. There are certainly people who watch rape for entertainment, but I do not think they constitute the majority of people posting here by any means, and I don't think they constitute very many people in the mainstream either.

>>>And by the way it is a really cheap shot to accuse me of being titillating

Yes, I'm sorry about that, it wasn't delicately put but I'm sure you got the point behind it clearly enough. Porn is meant to excite, that's its purpose. And I have no doubt that you find The War Zone no more carnally exciting than I do - so I find the pornography accusation difficult to buy. Equally, porn is ABOUT sex, and never emotion. This film is ALL about emotions, with a single, long-shot static-camera, deeply ugly, sex scene. How is it pornography? I mean, what definition can we use to call this pornography that we would not then be obliged to apply to films that we would not normally be inclined to describe in this way?

>>>In fact I think it is abnormal for the son to kill the father over
something like that ... but I don't know. I would bet that statistically
it just does not happen very often

Yes, I think it's self-evident that you're quite right about this (not least because so much abuse goes undiscovered, and the victim has nobody standing in front of her challenging the abuser with a knife). However, statistically most sexual abuse doesn't happen in a war-time bunker either. Certainly, having the film end on that act is possibly rather melodramatic, but it's not true to say that this doesn't happen either. If it happens in this film, it happens for dramatic reasons, and I don't see that it damages what has gone before. The grim reality is that these things aren't discovered and don't result in confrontation, but making a film that just consists of a girl being secretly abused by her father without any dramatic development except her suicide really WOULD be nihilistic and valueless in the extreme. To use Schindler's List again, you could accuse it of being unrealistic since the grim reality of the holocaust is that most of the victims were horribly murdered, and Schindler instead tells us the unrepresentative story of people who survived. But we know Schindler's List is based on a real story, so it cannot be called unrealistic, only unrepresentative of the whole - and that is only a problem if it overtly claims to represent the whole. Transferring this back to the The War Zone, this film does not attempt this either. What it does attempt to do, it does well.

>>>So to me this movie does not accurately portray much about people simple or complicated.

But surely if it is tackling a complicated subject you would not expect it to be universally accurate? It seems very accurate to me in the more general sense. Jess in particular is painfully familiar to me in a number of ways, the main reason that I find this film so emotionally charged.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

The other thing is that if Roth was so concerned about it, why
is the plot not about his father, or some case that he could
actually vouch for or relate to, this movie was pure, show it,
in a slick way, with slick camera work, and then make it wrong
by having someone kill the perpetrator while everyone gets to
see it ... because face it, no one would watch it if they did
not wonder what it was they were going to see.

There is no point or plot to it. It is "shown" as being
hidden, and then discovered and attacked ... boom show over.

It was just a show, with no point.

I just have contempt for this movie and its creator.

Not that I was expecting or wanted some apologetic movie
about why the poor perverts are driven to attacking their
own children, but some kind of attempt at something would
be nice, other than to show an older man raping a younger
helpless women, which is what most pornography is more
or less.

reply

[–] lepper-1 18 years ago

****Spoilers Herein****
To the OP, if your first post had been as well thought out as the second two, you would have been less likely to recieve flames.

I'm in two minds about this film. On one hand, it is a beautifully shot, brilliantly acted, well scrited and profoundly effective movie, but on the other I partialy agree with some of bruce's points. I don't think the hows and whys are given as much attention as they should have gotten. Why did Jesse put up with the abuse(the most likely reason is shame, but it could at least be mentioned), why did Tom feel the need to kill his father? What were the father's motives, what was his viewpoint? I'm not complaining about the ambiguity of the film, I just think it wasn't as in depth as it could have been, or even as it probably seems after watching it, as it is unquestionably powerful.

I don't know. I don't think the film can be condemed as pornographic or inconsiderate to abuse victims. Perhaps it is flawed, but the intent was good. I'd reccomend this as a very good film to see(to those with strong constitutions), but perhaps less so for it's handling of the subject matter.
My .02 euro.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

bingo!

following the logic .... the director, like so many Hollywood directors
to get attention ... ie. viewers, sales, etc, has to go somewhere where
no one has gone before ... so ... aha! child abuse ... but one can only
go there if one makes a definitive statement ... like killing the father
in the end ... especially if you have not given the film and plot a lot
of thought.

most child abuse cases do not end in murder or death i would wager, and
if there is a death, i would also wager that mostly it is suicide, and
self induced by the victim ... another fact among many that makes this
movie so disingenuous. that is why i was harsh on it and called it
porn\, because strictly speaking it is.

reply

[–] wigger_slayer 18 years ago

I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but I think Tom was confused about what was going on with his sister having sex with thier father as she is almost an adult, and yes, a very sexy/sexual young woman, but it becomes very clear to him that his father is sick when he sees Alice (the baby) in the hospital with a bleeding rectum which implies the father was the cause of this. This was was pivotal revelation that drove him to murder. First confronting his father then when he denies it, killing him. If his father broke down and said "I need help" I suspect the story would have turned out completely differently.

reply

[–] combatreview 18 years ago

>>>if Roth was so concerned about it, why is the plot not about his father, or some case that he could actually vouch for or relate to

Because it's a film, surely? Why should it even matter whether the director has a personal and real connection with the specific events depicted? It seems likely that he saw enough truth in Alexander Stuart's novel that he thought it would make a good vehicle for his concern over this issue, and chose it for adaptation. You surely don't judge all films on the basis of personal sincerity and personal involvement in the subject matter depicted.

>>>There is no point or plot to it. It is "shown" as being hidden, and then discovered and attacked ... boom show over.

But... isn't this three-act build up to Crisis and then passing through Catharsis a standard and ancient way of telling a story?

>>>I just have contempt for this movie and its creator.

I still can't understand why, even though you've expressed yourself very clearly. I... find it difficult to apply your arguments to the film, because I don't see the points of connection. You accuse it of being porn, and I simply cannot see how it fits that description.

>>>Not that I was expecting or wanted some apologetic movie about why the poor perverts are driven to attacking their own children, but some kind of attempt at something would be nice,

What do you think they should have done? What event or events could possibly explain the father's behaviour? As soon as you suggest something you are generalising, and frankly the only event that most people would find convincing as a cause for incest of this kind would be the involvement in an incestuous relationship while younger... which wouldn't be answering the question, and would be implying that the causal relationship between the two is absolute.

>>>other than to show an older man raping a younger helpless women, which is what most pornography is more or less.

No, this is an obviously flawed assertion. However nasty porn may sometimes be, you would find it difficult to locate many porn films that contain images especially reminiscent of these. Porn films are usually soulless but nonetheless exist in a context of permanent assumed mutual consent, and rarely need to include extreme depictions of pain and distress in one of the participants. I'm sure such films exist, but they have no emotional reality to them, and don't attempt to. Moreover, in order to find porn that is explicitly horrible you would have to go beyond 'mainstream' bounds beyond the general, and as I say above, you can be sure that there will always be some sick idiot who is turned on by that kind of stuff.

reply

[–] erskine_spencer 15 years ago

what makes agood film,we laugh at hollwood because they make silly movies thats unreal.Duh!movies are supposed to be entertainment and not real.If we want people to be educated about such things lets talk to each as human beings we can't do that but are looking for an anwer in a movie.Man given the power of an atom makes a bomb.Same with movies reality looking movies about th ef up *beep* in the world helps no one it just puts a human face to the fictional story it was not enough to see the guy vomit on stage we had to feel not that we felt it we are disgusted.Some people are afraid to admit that the film turned them on.Yes art is supposed to make you feel something,ask yourself this question did you realy needto see this guy rape his daughter to feel disgusted.Was lara belmount good because she was willing to expose herself.Its like no one wants to tell the pretty girl to button her blouse.She would of been better if she did not show anything<because now we have to read her exppressions in her peformances face body language.The reality of it is i am looking @ a hot 19 year old girl with big breast she's not my daughter not my sister and since she is not really getting rape why should i care.If ya'll want to find out what it is like talk to real victims look @ the terror in there eyes for real.I am a film maker given the power of the atom i will make a plane or house that self sustains itself.Something to help us all,not awaken demons in us that degrade.A man does something crazy,who's f uped the man or the fools who follow him.Just because we have the power to make a film about some f up sh#$ should we?

reply

[–] chamohlamb 8 years ago

Movies are supposed to be entertainment and not real? Um, can you tell me at which point in your life you started thinking you knew what movies should be?

There is room for all types of films. There are more then enough movies that will entertain you. None of them movies are about incest and rape.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 15 years ago

they dont have to tell us how it happened in the first place or why she let it happen the fact of the movie is that it does happen and in the movie it had already been happening the reason she put up with is that her father is larger and stronger then her she had been abused and if u knew about the statistics people who are abused dont just wake up and say hey im going to stop him or her. the movie is about a brother who realizes his father is a demented *beep* tard. and doesnt want to believe it then comes to the truth of the matter and acts for his sister to help destroy her attacker. yes there are lines that lead u to believe he is attracted to his sister but u can obviously tell he loves her

reply

[–] ron-o-1 18 years ago

hey, tipper gore stick to the music industry.

reply

[–] tiger-crane 18 years ago

Bruce, its a film and a bloody good one too...get over it mate!

reply

[–] nick-412 18 years ago

Bruce, your POV seems to be one big contradiction. To start with you seem to be pissed off with Hollywood for making this movie. The fact that it's made by a British company with a British director, British cast and is set in Britain seems to have completely passed you by.

Bizarre as it is, I will leave the 'pornographic' point alone as it has been gone into enough since your post.

<<all through the movie everyone has perfect makeup and the scenes are so &amp;amp;amp;quot;airbrushed&amp;amp;amp;quot; and glossy>>

Erm, were we watching the same film? The one I saw was set against an overcast Devenshire backdrop, in a filthy and untidy house with characters with pasty white skin and one with an acne problem. This is your idea of "airbrushed and glossy"?? I can't even recall a character wearing any particular make-up.

Other than this weird comment all your other reasons behind your opinion sound like you did not like the film because it was not Hollywood enough!

<<There is no how [the sex scene]happened, or was allowed to happen>>

Exactly! That is the whole point! It is Hollywood that has instilled in us that life has reasons, logic, common sense and conclusions. We do not know how or why it happens - in most real life cases you will find that neither the abuser nor the victim know either.

<<...why no one guesses it happened, or had seen it.>>

well acually Tom does, again, did we watch the same movie? One of the reasons I would think that it has remained secret and that there are no clues of any such relationship between father and daughter when they are around others is that they are both in such deep states of denial. (we don't find this out about father until the very end - he even professes his innocence when only he and Jessie are in the room)

<<Why did the girl put up with it.>>

Of course Hollywood's common sense and need for heroes means that of course an 18 year old has the strength to fight back so she would. In real life cases of incestual abuse, this is rarely the case. I do not know why, I am no shrink, but this very fact is largely why so many cases of this kind of abuse exist. Although Jessie cries thoughout the ordeal, which is the same every time, she still walks into that bunker voluntarily. It is to do with an emotional hold the abuser develops over the victim.

<<I think it is abnormal for the son to kill the father over something like that>>

Based on what? You have experience and understanding of the kind of emotional effect this kind of thing would have on an isolated teenage boy? Your only experiences from other storytelling - there's Hollywood again!

<<if someone ends up getting violent it would be the victim, and that probably the victim would turn their feelings in on themself>>

Correct - following the standard Hollywood formula for a film with child abuse, this is exactly what would happen.

Roth's intention with this movie was to show people like you that real life is NOT like a Hollywood movie. There are not always reasons, motives, and obvious answers. I think that this film has an enormous social benefit - it shows abusers, or would-be abusers the consequenses of their actions from the point of view of the emotional effect on the victim, whether direct (ie Jessie) or indirect (ie Tom). I hope that you're right and that it will attract rapist perverts seeking titillation. I think after seeing it they may think again before acting on their instincts.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

> Roth's intention with this movie was to show people like you
> that real life is NOT like a Hollywood movie.

This one comment seems to sum up your whole condescending pointless
post and impeaches any point you may have somehow wanted to connect
with.

Are you Tim Roth? How would you know what his intention was?

And by the way, while you are at it, who are, people like me?

The War Zone had zilch to do with real life, and everything to do
with marketing, profit, and softening the audience for stronger
pornography.

Personally ... I am pro-pornography. Life has its seedy side and
I think it ought to be shown ... just not under false pretenses.

reply

[–] combatreview 18 years ago

>>>This one comment seems to sum up your whole condescending pointless post and impeaches any point you may have somehow wanted to connect with.

Bruce, you've been arguing your case with lucidity, but I thought the previous poster made some very good points which you're now failing to address by this rejection. Please reconsider.

>>>Are you Tim Roth? How would you know what his intention was?

He's going to tell you he's read the interviews and listened to the commentary.

>>>The War Zone had zilch to do with real life, and everything to dowith marketing, profit, and softening the audience for stronger pornography.

This seems to be a reversion to your original generalisation. As you will point out, you are wholly entitled to an opinion, but really... aside from your opinion and personal reaction to this film, how on earth can you lucidly support the claim that a film about a difficult, repulsive and alienating subject that falls outside of mainstream tastes can possibly have anything to do with marketing and profit? This was not a blockbuster. Nor is it an exploitation movie. This was not a film that was talked about in the way that, say, Irreversible was, and it didn't seek to me. If I wanted a director to make me a money-grabbing exploitation shocker and he dumped this film on me I'd sack him on the spot, because audiences like their horrors to be comfortable.

>>>Personally ... I am pro-pornography. Life has its seedy side and
I think it ought to be shown ... just not under false pretenses

Like I say, this would be convincing if The War Zone was about the depiction of sex. If it were, there would surely be more of it!

reply

[–] constable_funnyname 18 years ago

This is not a Hollywood funded film I dont think

reply

[–] nick-412 18 years ago

<<This one comment seems to sum up your whole condescending pointless post and impeaches any point you may have somehow wanted to connect with. >>

Well that's handy. Is this really your way of avoiding any comment about any of the other points I've made?

As it happens, the only point I made which you have dared to respond to and your response is once again a big ol' contradiction. You slate me for daring to suggest I might know Tim Roth's intentions were because I am not Tim Roth, and then you cap it by telling me exactly what you think Tim Roth's intentions were! Namely, "marketing, profit, and softening the audience for stronger pornography". Are you Tim Roth? I guess you must be.

Btw any strong pornography I've seen shows people having sex. These two actors did not have sex with each other. Therefore it is not pornography. It's pretty straightforward.

What I mean by 'people like you' is inferred by the rest of the sentence. It means people who think real life is like Hollywood would have us believe, which given the examples of your views I have already sited, you obviously do.

And if you really think any audience is in any way 'softened' by this film then I think you're a bit loopy. I've no idea why you would think this. It must be obvious to you that no-one on this board was and you obviously haven't been.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

I am not trying to avoid any points you may making ... or trying
to make. IMDB for me is not a full time job and there are movies
that I will invest the time in talking about ... this movie as you
can guess is not one of my top priorities.

It boggles that you are willing to take the time to post a long
post .... and I suppose I might be curious as to why you think
this movie is worth it?

So ... if there is something I deem it important to reply to, when
I have time and inclination I will.

Briefly, I think I know the reason for almost all movies is to
make money for investors. Someone comes up with a project, a
budget, a plan, and tries to convince investors/someone that
if they put up money that there is an audience out there willing
to pay to see it. I do not claim to understand Roth, only to
imply from movie that taking up a movie about a subject they
have little to say about that has any reality to it, the whole
movie is an excuse for a few questionable scenes.

I see very little art or social good in movies these days, and
this one did not impress me otherwise.

reply

[–] nick-412 18 years ago

Well, actually if I look back over this thread it is obvious to anyone that you have spent a considerably more time than me on this, so I will let you decide whether or not it is worth it. It seems to me that it IS one of your top priorities! You just spent half your reply explaining why you do not have time to write replies, having written lengthy ones previously. It just looks like you are now avoiding the issues which you yourself have started.

Some movies' sole purpose is to cash in. But filmmaking in the most part is an art form as much as painting a picture or writing a song. What makes it different is that it is a hell of a lot more costly - so investors are needed. Investors are not necessarily artists, they are money men - they need to feel that investing in this artwork will be a financially good move. So yes, all movies do need to make money. That does not mean that this is the reason they are made.

So you do not see art or social good in this movie. Fine. That's your call. I often look at a highly acclaimed painting and see no art in it. I just have to consider that this one's not for me because others obviously do. What I do not do is go ranting on a website that the artist should go to jail. Even if it does portray nudity or suggestion of anything sexual involving an 18 year old (ie an ADULT).

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chamohlamb 8 years ago

Pretty sure this movie made little to no profit. It's a movie that has zero marketability, unless you really think percerts flocked to see it.

reply

[–] neil_mc 18 years ago

Why do you type down the left hand side of the page?

Very annoying to read.

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

>Ok. There's been 26 replies and bruce-129 has already no doubt slinked into a hole with shame, but i have to have my 2 cents.

I have no slunk anywhere with shame, I just stopped responding to idiots like you who
1) Think that somehow beginning a coversation with an insult wins you the argument.
2) Like this pathetic movie.

I could care less about Tim Roth but perhaps what explains his participation in this
movie more than anything is the fact that most child molesters were molested as a
child themselves.

reply

[–] the-greek-island 18 years ago

Is that what you're here to do bruce-129, 'win an aurgumen'?

How base, to reduce a potentialy important discussion as this to a game of cards. Tit-for-tat and counter tit-for-tat cudos hungry time wasting.

You've got nothing on Tim Roth. Please I beg of you, climb down from your sparkling horse and have a conversation with me just for a while.

How can you call actors representing what happens in a blinding amount of house holds around the world, and continues to happen, becasue of the pheniminal blindness generated by people who foster your frame of mind and mentality.

Just actors and directors and you are ready to burn at the stake so to speak.

But you have nothing to say in any lucid light about the sitautions this film represents beyond the cinema.

Tim Roth has guts and courage to make a film like this in the face of the kind of ignorance that gives cloak and camoflage to crimes like the ones depicted let me stress DEPICTED, in this all too important film.

here's some friendly advice, and I mean friendly beacuse in spite of how my words read I don't have slight for, or quarrel with you:

Stear clear of the culture of thought that leads to one being ignorant of their own ignorance!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anezka14 18 years ago

"I could care less about Tim Roth but perhaps what explains his participation in this
movie more than anything is the fact that most child molesters were molested as a
child themselves."

now youre just being argumentative---Tim Roth has stated that he was an incest victim and that his father was also one---why doesn't he have the right to make a movie about the subject? should he just pretend that it has never exist?

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

I guess that my point about this movie is that it is only does one thing about child molestation ... it doesn't give us any idea why, or any realistic idea of how to deal with it or stop it, but it gives us a nice pornographic scene of a father have anal intercourse with his daughter that is almost pornographic. Face it in America people have been sent to jail for having picture like that on their computers and this guy makes a movie about it and it is supposed to be a statement about pedophilia ... I don't buy it, the guys makes me puke and so does anyone that defends this film.

reply

[–] the-greek-island 18 years ago

"but it gives us a nice pornographic scene"

Why aare you describing this scene as nice, I didn't find it (must put this in quotes) "nice".

Anything but.

Here's a hypothetical senarioe bruce-129, you get your way, and no film will ever show anything dealing with this crime in a bold way,

Explain to me what you achieve????????????????????????

If you deprive exposure of this crime then you bruce-129 in your noble effort to deny sick people of "nice pornographic [inscest]" all you do is provide the people who abuse people like Tim Roth, his father before him and all others in the line of fire the PRIVACY THEY CRAVE TO KEEP ON ABUSING.

Surely its a simple lesser of two evils case, surely?

"The flesh is weak Johnny only the soul is immortal."-Angel Heart(1987)

reply

[–] anezka14 18 years ago

So true. I still don't understand what the argument is here; the scene is supposed to be appalling. Even the people who get off on it must see that---so what is the problem?

reply

[–] chamohlamb 8 years ago

Calling that scene pornographic assumes that it was meant to be arrousing.

reply

[–] Falconeer 18 years ago

That is a pretty surprising reaction to this film. First off, this is not a Hollywood produced film. Actually it had nothing to do with Hollywood. And I absolutely don't understand the comment about the actors looking polished and having perfect make-up. One of the things that made the film so realistic is that the actors did not look perfect, but like real people. Actress Lara Belmost just happens to be a pretty girl with good skin, i suppose. She didn't appear to be wearing any make-up in most scenes. And the boy, Freddie Cunliffe actually had a bad skin problem. He absolutely looked like a normal, everyday teenager, which he was. I believe this was his first go at acting. He answered an ad in a newspaper, searching for "extra's" for a film, and ended up with a lead role, mainly because he didn't look like the typical "Hollywood pretty boy." It almost sounds like you are reviewing a different film. Maybe you are confusing this with another movie? A film about incest is expected to contain sex scenes, and sex scenes that are hard and ugly. I found nothing exploitative, or arousing about these scenes, which by the way total about 5 minutes in a movie that runs 100 minutes. The only thing I agree with about what you said is that it is sick and "perverted". The subject matter is concerning a father having sexual intercourse with his young daughter. If it makes the viewer sick, or uncomfortable, than it has succeeded in doing what it set out to do. "War Zone" is a fantastic piece of cinema. Obviously it is not for everyone.

reply

[–] anonymous124 17 years ago

This isn't child porn, but that stuff I found under your matress certainly was.
Absolutely disgusting. I plan to report you to the police.
Sicko.

There's cyanide in the bathroom.

reply

1
2
3