MovieChat Forums > Deux frères (2004) Discussion > I hated this movie with all the passion ...

I hated this movie with all the passion of my soul

posted 19 years ago by daydream_believer614
29 replies | jump to latest

This movie was an unmitigated failure. The emotional torture of it was purely manipulative, with none of the value of character development or intricacy that makes tragedy good. I saw it on a plane and I had to put a pillow up to cover my eyes as the multiple images kept catching my vision from various points on the plane. I felt harassed and upset and miserable, and every time I accidently caught a glimpse I was looking down the barrell of a gun or watching a mother desperately try to protect her cubs amid the confusion of human greed and implacable destruction. The little boy and the hunter who seemed to care about the tigers, well I was hoping the whole time that they would get eaten.

It is not that I resent upsetting movies. I appreciate having my pitiful issues put into perspective by a dramatic rendering of the horrors of this world. Difficult, but fair enough. Harder of late because I feel that I can get all I can take of the world's atrocities by glancing at the news.

But this movie was just not right. You can't take a tiger family, anthropomorphize them to the point of the ridiculous, let all artistic merit fall by the wayside, in order to drive home the horrendously depressing message that we humans have just about wiped out this species despite the efforts of cute little boys such as the one in the film crying about it. I think that most relatively sensitive people can appreciate the tragedy of what we humans have done to the natural world. We don't need the condescension of having it stated to us in such a grossly manipulative way. If you're going to have outrageously cliche characters immersed in an insipid plot, don't disrespect a truly tragic issue by subjecting it to such an immature portrayal.

[–] BlindLemonPye 18 years ago

.........Maybe you should switch airlines?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] daydream_believer614 18 years ago

Yes indeed, BlindLemonPye's reply demonstrated true alacrity of wit.

Do people watch movies to learn a message that will encourage them to treat the natural environment with more respect? Or do they watch movies to be entertained? I would argue that the latter is correct. Seeking entertainment is by no means a shallow pursuit. I would agree that for most people, catharsis is essential to emotional health.

But the point is that when you see a preview for this kind of movie, it makes your heart swell as you listen to the moving music and look into the soulful eyes of the tigers. This is a form of manipulation. It's making you want to see the movie because it feels good to immerse yourself in that which stimulates emotions.

And I just think the fact that we enjoy this sort of thing testifies to a kind of widespread pathology. Perhaps it's better than going to see incredibly violent horror films, but still, the point is that we're enjoying a depiction of suffering, packaged in such a way that it can be marketed as entertainment. In the case of great tragedy, fair enough. For whatever reason, we have always needed to live vicariously through characters in narrative. Back to catharsis. But in the case of bad movies (as I would argue this one is), I don't think there is any good effect, either a heightening of environmental awareness OR a healthy catharsis.

Please don't tell me that anyone chooses to watch this film, or to show it to their kids, in order to be socially responsible.

That said, many movies that are hard to watch do have an important effect on the way we see the world, and make us more sensitive to suffering that we would otherwise ignore. I just didn't think that this movie fell into that category, perhaps simply because it was so badly done.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] daydream_believer614 18 years ago

agree to disagree then =)

to be totally honest i think i would have felt much more sympathetic to the movie if i had approached it in a different mood. i seem disposed to complain about everything these days, heh.

i did really enjoy the scene where the tiger brothers were reunited and started to play instead of attacking each other.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jbwrubberband 18 years ago

Let's all just keep this in perspective. Its a movie. Not only is it just a movie, if a family movie, or so it would seem. I am sure there are those out there who would try and use 50 cent words to argue that it is NOT a family movie.

Catharsis? Social agendas? Widespread pathology? Gimme a freaking break. Did it take you a half an hour with a thesaurus to end up with that post? Or are you just so intelligent that you could do it right off the cuff?

Either way, it doesnt matter. The posts found on this thread are of the nature that one would expect to find in some heated political debate... not some lame IMDB thread about a family movie. If people want to see some cheap, emotionally manipulative movie in order to be manipulated, then who cares? People spend millions every year to do just that. Who cares if it doesnt have good character development or whatever?

If someone had just gotten on here and said "I dont like this movie because there is poor character development and it's just an emotionally manipulative film," then I would have been fine with that. But, as people are ranting about the social statements being made by this family movie, they are also thinking that the IMDB message board is a good place to publish their own social statements. Maybe you should stick to making accurate movie reviews, because I doubt very strongly that you are qualified to speak about the sociological and psychological effects of movies, bad or good.

And Bush isnt doing a bad job of leading the country... he just isnt a Democrat. But thats a different thing altogether.

[–] daydream_believer614 18 years ago

Good review of the movie you provided there =)

Isn't using an imdb message board to obsess over the validity of imdb message board topics a little bit self-defeating?

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

In these forums, people often comment on shows or movies and inevitably someone will say "It's a movie" or "It's a show" as if we are supposed to turn off our brain. It is the type of comment a writer or producer might make that is uninterested in knowing how things could be improved.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

You say people watch movies to be entertained, as if we are all the same. You are wrong, and I am careful about using that word. In movies there is an abundance of great examples of bad behavior. It is easy to make movies like that. What we need is good examples of good behavior. Making movies just to entertain is a terrible excuse for educating people about the wrong way to behave. Probably the abundance of examples of dysfunctional behavior and lack of maturity in movies is what has caused so many Americans to favor Donald Trump. Non-Americans criticize Americans for not liking the movie. Crazy.

Some people are praising and justifying the movie for being realistic. So is it realistic or is it just entertainment?

[–] daydream_believer614 18 years ago

I'm sorry but I really couldn't make much sense of your comment. Do you think I hate animals? Do you think I should kill myself because I hate animals? What does manipulative film-making have to do with buying a gun?

I'm not a Bush supporter, but if you're not American yourself I can understand why you are aggressive towards Americans. He has done a terrible job leading the country. Not sure what that has to do with this movie though.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LacyDriveCar 17 years ago

I hated this movie with all the passion of my soul

i hate you with all the passion in my sole

GET OFF! GET OFF! MY TIGER!

[–] MsBlonde_7 17 years ago

i can understand why you might find the film manipulative and i appreciate that however i think personally that it was the a success. the whole point of the media is to portray a message to an audience; which is that we need to respect the animals on our planet. i also agree with your comments on the characters however i think the main focus on the film itself was the tigers and not so much the humans as i find that the animals themselves show far more emotion and storyline to the film than the human actors are supposed to. plus i think the human actors in the film were meant to be seen as more extras, there to play the human part that needed filling and that it was primarily the tigers that were supposed to be the main characters.

plus watching a film on a plane isnt the best way to see it for the first time - i couldnt get into sin city when i saw it on a plane but i saw it again with some friends and i actually really like it [mostly its due to being packed into a plane with limited space and smelly people around ya]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dianabanana 17 years ago

Maybe this movie wasn't as manipulative as it appeared. There was a documentary on tigers that I watched recently, and two young male tigers found their ways (independently) back to their mother. They had a reunion similar to the one in the movie. I had questioned whether their mother would have recognized them and welcomed them back, but that was pretty much the same as what happened in the documentary, so it was probably more truthful than I had suspected.

[–] Caz1964 17 years ago

I dont know why any one would hate this film,i mean okay it might be a bit manipulative but how else are they going to put the message across that tigers are now a really endangered species.
We should have been doing more 20,30 years ago. I think now we may be just a little bit too late,i hope not,or else we really need to start helping them as soon as possible.

[–] scoobysaurus 17 years ago

one who is stupid enough to hate this movie is comparable to the devil himself.

Official member of the IMDb nWo.
Nobody is perfect. I am Nobody, therefore I am perfect!

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

People should not be so quick to use words without thinking about what they really intend to say and what the words they use really mean. Specifically, people should more careful about using the word "hate".

[–] PunchAppeal 17 years ago

yes yes yes i couldn't have said a better analogy this movie sucks and we haven't seen all. no happy parts only heart breaking

[–] Holkospinner 13 years ago

Are you guys completely retarted? Tigers are almost extinct in wilderness. Why should there be happy parts in the movie, anything other than heartbreak. I bet you are American. Your culture is one of selfshiness and you just can't deal with the uncomfortable feeling that we humans *beep* up this planet.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

You probably call everyone that disagrees with you American.

[–] stxflyer 12 years ago

You're an idiot, plain an simple.

Next time walk.

Any day above ground is a good day.

[–] WeponX 11 years ago

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I know Tigers are endangered. So while I sympathize with the OP, I must ask, don't you think if we "didn't" need such a dramatic and painful example, then maybe the tigers wouldn't have it so bad?

I mean, methods thus far to stop the atrocities you were forced to watch haven't done too much, so maybe showing the atrociousness of the atrocities would have some affect. I dunno, just spitballing.

Have a plan, and stick to it.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

People are complaining that it gives the impression of being something it is not. Also, the makers seem to be confused, it is not clear whether they intend to be entertaining or serious. If they are sincere about making a point then they need to be more sincere about that.

If this movie is intended to show that the Tiger is endangered then it needs to be set in modern times instead of so far in the past. The excuse that it is intended to make a point is useless since it is set in the past.

[–] welshNick 11 years ago

You have to view this movie in its correct context and when it was set. It is set in the 1920's when tiger hunting, particularly in India, was rife and totally out of control.

Today there are less than 3000 tigers in the wild. If tigers are to survive it has to start with the next generation. If a film like this can make the next generation do something about the wildlife problems in the world which this and previous generations have miserably failed to do then some some good will come out of your misery.

I used to work at a wildlife park and gave the public a talk before feeding time. I pulled no punches and told them exactly what goes on today.People were shocked, they had no idea. I will not go into it here as this is a film forum not one of conservation.

I say make more films like this, prick people's conscience and perhaps there may be a glimmer of hope for the future of those we share the planet with.

[–] dogshowaddict 9 years ago

I appreciate your using the term "anthropomorphize". Bravo for that line of thinking.

Well, to me, the average viewer who likes this film means that the run of the mill audience member never, EVER thinks about capitalistic adventurers exploiting indigenous societies, which themselves got corrupted by imperialism and some kind of a sick ruling class in those nations. 19th-20th century puppet governments; how in God's name did they learn so quickly to exploit having picked up English, German, whatever, and convey an attitude to the archeological rapists and the money they brought into those underdeveloped countries.

Daydream_believer614, I'm going to look you up to see if you're still active here, and would enjoy becoming friends!