MovieChat Forums > Subconscious Cruelty (2002) Discussion > HORRIBLE

HORRIBLE

posted 19 years ago by heavy_blinker
17 replies | jump to latest

Let me begin by admitting that I`ve never actually made a film. But if I had made a film, and it was anything like this, then I would right now be wishing I could go back in time and stop myself from doing so, because it would be out there, and have my name on it. Yes, this film is that bad.

Subconscious Cruelty IS gruesome. But more than that, it is ANNOYING. And I don`t mean that it`s unnerving or creepy or anything like that... I mean, it`s annoying like that guy in film class that thinks he`s got great vision, and concludes that anyone who doesn`t `get it` is stupid and missing the point... even though it`s obvious that when they`re saying `I don`t really get it`, they`re just politely saying `you`re just kidding yourself`. A word of advice to all the polite people out there: these guys SHOULD NOT be allowed to go on like this. They should be told the truth, because it could potentially help them to get over themselves... and improve their lives in many ways.

Of course, wouldn`t you know, this film is Canadian. So I would like to take this opportunity to beg whoever is giving people like this grants to make movies to PLEASE STOP. As it is, our culture just isn`t developed enough to afford stupid films like this to bear our national emblem. And the industry is so small that not so many films get made here... just think of all the other films that this money could have been spent on! *beep* it would have been better to reroute it back to the Liberal Party.

Anyway... just listen to that monologue in the first sequence and tell me you are actually threatened by the `brother`. The whole time I was listening to it, I kept thinking to myself... "This is not the voice of a killer, it is the voice of a teenager who has watched too many horror movies... and probably watched them completely alone." The way he keeps talking about his `terrible mockery of the birth process` suggests he is presenting this scenario as if it is so fresh and original that no one on earth could possibly have ever thought it, and so we are all supposed to be impressed. Get it? He`s a GENIUS!

So you`re pathetic, insane, negative, so immature you are probably retarded, and very very alone. Good for you. Why the *beep* should anyone care?

This movie is being fed to us as if it is some sort of deeply personal vision... though it is obvious that the director is incapable of being honest with himself. I know it`s supposedly surrealism and all that... but unfortunately, we are not living in the 1920s and this guy is really really really not Salvador Dali or Luis Bunuel. None of these images work like the eyeball-slicing scene... he has this left brain right brain thing that is basically restating the original intention of the surrealists as if it hadn`t already been stated... of course, without bringing anything new to it.

In fact, the filmmaker doesn`t seem to have anything original to say about anything... so he shows us lots of blood and jizz, and then to make sure it`s not just about grossing us out, he shows us some money changing hands... Canadian money, no less... as if it wasn`t already hard enough to take this seriously.

Anyone who compares this guy to David Cronenberg or David Lynch needs to think about being really quiet on a regular basis. Both of those directors have intelligence and insight... they are aware of the world we are really living in, and would probably cringe at this film... not because it is pushing any limits or turning stomachs, but because it is so *beep* pretentious.

So anyway, I recommend Subconscious Cruelty to all those who think they have vision and don`t. Once you see this, it is possible that you will reconsider your life... you may realize that you need to work on your people skills, starting with being honest with yourself.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] laserboy28 18 years ago

Film is subjective, and while I respect your opinions on this film this humble Canuck thinks this is one very deep, disturbing and interesting (albiet gross!) piece of film making. Is it good? Maybe not. But it provokes very strong emotions most anywhere I read about it. But I liked it and I give these guys credit for 1) getting it made and 2) getting it shown anywhere!
Personally, I like films that challenge me and make me think. This challenged me and I'm still thinking about it!

It's not for everyone though, that's for sure.

[–] heavy_blinker 18 years ago

I like films that make me think too. That's why I like Andrei Tarkovsky. This film is the cinematic equivalent of a Marilyn Manson concert... it is juvenile, pretentious and gratuitous. It is just a bunch of random scenes thrown together-- none of which say anything new, important, or interesting to anyone over the age of maybe 15... or immature 17 year olds. The problem isn't that I find it too challenging or difficult, the problem is that I feel like I'm being patronized... talked down to by someone who is obviously not smarter than me.
He is feeding us boring, stale, outdated, irrelevant surrealism as if he invented surrealism... and he does it without bringing anything new whatsoever to the formula.

[–] x1nd0lent 18 years ago

I have not seen this film yet, having just heard about it. Anyway, I find your comments peculiar. You suggest that only people who are as smart or smarter than you should make films? Tarkovsky existed for a reason, but Manson does also. This is to say that even immature teenagers need to have something to watch, and it might yet better be this than another overblown CGI craptacular. You speak of surrealism as if it is an old, passe formula - but the extent of any "formula" is to disregard discursive reason and work from your subconscious. My understanding is that artists do this not to advance their school's formula, but rather because it is their own expression, be it conscious or subconscious. I only just awoke from sleep about twenty minutes ago, maybe my dreams were outdated also, but I am not going to worry about it.

What I consider ironic about your post is the pretense that people should somehow be kept from making films if they are less skilled or mature than you, or directors who you better appreciate. If it wasn't for people's sophmoric efforts, how would they grow into better film makers? Why not take a minute to read some of the harsh reviews of Cronenberg's student films, "Stereo" and "Crimes of the Future"? Personally, I love those two films, but it sounds to me as if your average reviewer would have written him off as a lost cause before the early 70's. You sound less like Tarkovsky to me than the film board beaurocrats who ran him out of the Soviet Union. The USSR considered Tarkovsky bad for the reputation of their state, a decadent, whimsical dabbler. You are every bit entitled to regret having seen a film, but to regret it having been made suggests an imposing attitude.

[–] rhyminsthebomb 18 years ago

Heavy Blinker...you're ridiculous. You've created a long and rambling post for absolutely no reason other than to bring some humour to my day.

I enjoy talking to morons like you; it's an interesting exercise in scientific inquiry. I loved the hypocrisy you unknowingly unleashed with your film-school-guy-that-thinks-he's-a-genius-but-he's-not reference. The defining characteristic of that oh so classic character is his snobby arrogance towards filmmaking. What do you possess? An EXTREME amount of arrogance towards film.

You claim to be so much more intelligent than the director of this film, yet you don't possess, within your wide knowledge base, one of the most widely known facts regarding the art: film is subjective. I wouldn't emphasize this if I found your opinion valid in any way shape or form. Don't criticize a film for being pretensious when you yourself are being disgustingly pretensious. You're not as smart as you think you are, as any rational person could determine from your post(s).

Subconscious Cruelty is an average movie. I watched it one day when I was bored, and it did an ok job of curing that boredom. It's nothing special, but it's certainly not as ridiculous as your self-worth riddled opinion would have us believe.

I derive laughs from people (like yourself) who think they know everything about surrealism. Surrealism, by its very definition, is not something to adhere to any strict "formula" (I can't even believe you would have the guts to call yourself more intelligent than someone and then use the word "formula" to describe surrealism....That alone destroys any credibility you may've had as a critic).

Please do yourself a favor: abandon this faux-intellectual thing you're trying to present...because everyone can clearly tell that you're an idiot.

[–] lymphnoder 17 years ago

Alright, fine, I hated this movie too. I found it unoriginal, immature, and I just wasn't challenged by it at all. Still, I've never met the film's creator or read an interview, or even seen a picture of the guy, so just what authority could I possibly have with which to judge his character? How the hell do I know if he's an arrogant film school snob type or not? All I have any real evidence of is the film's content.

This film could easily have meant an awful lot to its creator; even so much that he may not have been able to make a single other piece of film until he'd freed himself of this one. You may want to call him stupid or shallow if that is the case, but these things are all relative to the individual artist.

There's that "A" word again. I've said it numerous times (and I'm not the only one), but it seems that so many are too busy fighting about who is the most intillectual to listen. The truth is that it's "ALL" art. That's right, even "Weekend At Bernie's" and "Earnest Saves Christmas" are art. A piece of construction paper with macaroni glued to it in the shape of a heart with the statement "I Love You" scawled in crayon on the inside may not look like much when compared to the work of our classical painters, but it still manages to bring millions of parents to tears every year.

And doesn't this forum exist for the purpose of discussing movies? If all you people wanna do is fight, there are plenty of schoolyards and shopping mall parking lots at your disposal. But if the insecure among you are ready to grow up, stop taking a negative film experience as a personal affront, and stop judging everyone so viciously for doing nothing more than simply having a differing opinion of a movie, then I can't wait to get started.

[–] astroantiquity 17 years ago

I really thought this movie was a pointless exercise. I take it that the director wanted to make a "rebel movie." But the scenes were just so all over the place. I mean, I've read, and seen Arrabal movies, but those movies had a political agenda, and the surreal scenes served as a complement to the goings on of the movie. This movie really wasted my time, and to think I had been at it for years.

[–] The_Memorial_Storm 11 years ago

A piece of construction paper with macaroni glued to it in the shape of a heart with the statement "I Love You" scawled in crayon on the inside may not look like much when compared to the work of our classical painters, but it still manages to bring millions of parents to tears every year.

I don't often take the time to post replies to others' comments on here, especially almost 7 years after the fact, but I just had to say that was the best analogy to explain the subjectivity of art, and how to best evaluate the merit of each piece we ever encounter in our lives, regardless of the medium. Well done!

Cheers

"Everything dies, but not everything comes to an end..." - Rev. Thomas Martin, City of the Dead

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dumbgirl 17 years ago

Really great review. I just wanted to know that you put me off watching this any time soon and also made me laugh a bit with your impotent rage against Canada.

I know that I don't have some misspelled missive about how anybody who judges anything thinks they're better than everyone, how no one can say something is terribly unenjoyable unless they have created something in the same medium which is more enjoyable than the thing being criticized, and liberally sprinkled with accusations of 'ignorance' and general negativity with absolutely no basis other than that you disagree with me.

Even without those qualifications, I would like to thank you for a thoughtful expression of your feelings about this film that I was probably about to waste my time on, an expression which you offered me for free, with no warranty and for no reward.

[–] jumble1962 17 years ago

"So anyway, I recommend Subconscious Cruelty to all those who think they have vision and don`t. Once you see this, it is possible that you will reconsider your life... you may realize that you need to work on your people skills, starting with being honest with yourself. "

¡¡¡Hahaha... !!! It sounds like you are reconsidering your life. You know what?, you are the pretentious here.

[–] cronoyuha-1 16 years ago

I agree with a lot of what you say i suppose. I give the director kudos for going out there and doing it. Maybe he is pretneious, maybe he isn't. The fact is though he did something. He put his idea to the test, he put it out there for the world to see. Maybe his veiws have changed, maybe he has changed as a director. I did not enjoy the movie either, it was long and blaringly obvious what he was going to do next. After the fetus killin segment i was counting downt he minutes till a urniation scene. I saw this moviue because i saw a clip of the opening segment and loved it, and i still do. Its short, too the point and powerful. That is a dream image. Everything else was perhaps to personal to the director, but either way thigns need to be made and watcched for people to react and progress.

[–] polysicsarebest 15 years ago

Man, brilliant, surreal, experimental art really bothers some people.

[–] DrTrannySurprise 15 years ago

Getting bombarded with a firehose loaded with cold dog diarrhea really bothers people too. Karim Hussain is perhaps the only person alive that can make Paul Haggis look subtle.

[–] Ash512 14 years ago

I can assure you SC didn't get a single cent from Telefilm Canada, or any other such organisation. This is a 100% independantly produced feature.

[–] Black_Dahlia 11 years ago

If nothing else your diatribe is a sincere compliment to Karim Hussain, in that regardless of what you thought about his film as a movie, as art it succeeded in causing strong emotions in you.

Art does not want to endear, it just wants to move.

[–] The_Memorial_Storm 11 years ago

Art does not want to endear, it just wants to move.

Also very well-said!

After all, the worst way we can react to another person's artwork is with indifference. Only then could the artist feel like s/he has failed.

"Everything dies, but not everything comes to an end..." - Rev. Thomas Martin, City of the Dead