MovieChat Forums > Chaos (2005) Discussion > What two scenes will Roger Ebert not dis...

What two scenes will Roger Ebert not discuss?


In the book "Your Movie Sucks" by Roger Ebert, he wrote that there are two scenes in the film "Chaos" that are so brutal he can not possibly write about them. I will never rent this film because I do not support films of this nature, but I must admit I am curious about these two scenes. I know it's hypocritical, but I am just not going to rent this. I'd like someone to explain the two scenes to me. Thanks.

reply

Yes your right it is hypocritical. Why not just admit that you would watch this flick simply out of curiosity?

The two scenes are not particularly graphic or brutal in the great scheme of things (compared to other films out there), but they are as follows;

Two girls are abducted and taken into the woods, one girl is stripped, has her nipple cut-off and forcefed to her until she vomits, she is then stabbed to death and her corpse raped. The other girl escapes but is later hunted down, stripped, hogtied and has her vagina and anus stabbed into one hole and is left to bleed out.

The first scene is more graphic than the second (nothing is on-screen in the second scene).

Decent horror flick, I'd recommend you check it out if you get the chance. Otherwise it's nothing special.

If you want a truly perverse and deranged serial killer flick check out August Underground's Mordum. It makes Chaos look like sesame street.






"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

Oh you are right, that doesn't sound particularly graphic at all. I cut my friends nipples off all of the time. I already did admit to curiosity about the two scenes, but mainly because I have never read anything where Roger Ebert sounded so disgusted. His unwillingness to describe these two scenes is what made me curious, not a sick love for violence and inhumanity. Girl number one has her nipples cut off and fed to her. She vomits, and then she is raped. Girl number two is hogtied and stabbed in the vagina and anus. Wonderful.



reply

Yes generally it's a feel-good kind of film.

Ebert has a problem with this film because Ebert has problems with any portyrals of violence or humilitation against women, regardless of context.

I recall a piece from Siskel & Ebert on my Blue Velvet DVD. A very worked-up and emotional Ebert bleets on about how he hated the film, based PURELY on the fact that Isabella Rossellini's character Dorothy Vallens appears near the end of the film completely naked and bruised. He argues that making an actress do this was immoral and deplorable.

The more logical Siskel brings the conversation down to reality by reminding Ebert that David Lynch was not exactly holding a gun to Isabella Rossellini's head.

Ebert also hated Last House on the Left and this "unofficial remake" for those same reasons. He admits in his write-up that the film is technically OK, but does not see the utility in displaying such brutal violence.

So to sum up, IT's A GODDAMN EXPLOITATIVE HORROR MOVIE EBERT.

Thank you.




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

I wouldn't say that's entirely true...

Ebert has never claimed to be above exploitation films (After all, he did write a few films for Russ Meyer). He doesn't hate "Last House on the Left" either--Actually, he likes is a lot. In his original review of the film he gave it 3.5 stars, claiming it explores the same territory as Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" but done much more effectively.
Although I think his review of "Blue Velvet" is ridiculously misguided (as with quite a few others); I don't think he hates any movie featuring violence or violence against women solely because it's there, he just hates it when it's without meaning (What has meaning and what doesn't is subjective of course).

reply

Ebert has never claimed to be above exploitation films (After all, he did write a few films for Russ Meyer). He doesn't hate "Last House on the Left" either--Actually, he likes is a lot. In his original review of the film he gave it 3.5 stars, claiming it explores the same territory as Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" but done much more effectively.

Hmmm I was positive I read somewhere he hated it just as much as Chaos, I must have been mistaken. This begs the question though why argue that Chaos is pointless when the "plot" is basically the same?

Although I think his review of "Blue Velvet" is ridiculously misguided (as with quite a few others); I don't think he hates any movie featuring violence or violence against women solely because it's there, he just hates it when it's without meaning (What has meaning and what doesn't is subjective of course)

Yeah possibly a bit of a broad sweeping generalization on my part. Don't get me wrong I'm not against Ebert and he's probably seen more films in recent years than I'll ever see in my life and is obviously a very talented and respected reviewer.

Furthermore Chaos is NOT a great movie and although I believe David DeFalco likes to think it is. Personally I think it's an effective and fairly well-paced straight-forwards horror flick. No more no less.

Absolutely re: meaning being subjective, naturally there are always going to be who like or dislike any movie for whatever reason. I just don't think personal bias like "wow all this violence is pointless" is a valid position for an intelligent reviewer to take. Sure it's ultimately inevitable but judge it on it's merits, don't go on some moral-high-ground crusade and give a movie a "0 star review" because it offended and upset you, wasn't that the whole point?



"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

I think Ebert's point is a good one. It is indeed the same plot, but "Last House on the Left" is better at its storytelling than this one. The violence in that film was exploitational, but it also had context, which was to show humanity stripped away; first the humanity of the murderers for the disgusting things they did to the girls, then of the parents who seek revenge for it. "Chaos" removes this element entirely, substituting a bogus after school special "warning" while all they really wanted to do was show some girls getting cut up real good. There's nothing else to "Chaos", it's simply a film that exists to show the audience two brutal murders.

It should also be noted that both "LHOTL" and "Chaos" share their plot with Bergman's "Virgin Spring", which itself is derived from a folk tale. So I don't think it's the violence that Ebert had a problem with, it was because "Chaos" presented the violence as if it were pornography.

reply

I think Ebert's point is a good one. It is indeed the same plot, but "Last House on the Left" is better at its storytelling than this one. The violence in that film was exploitational, but it also had context, which was to show humanity stripped away; first the humanity of the murderers for the disgusting things they did to the girls, then of the parents who seek revenge for it.

I don't dispute that the storytelling in Chaos is weak, it is. However you could apply the exact same context of what you just said to it re: murderers & family seeking revenge (the exact same thing happens, only with a twist).

"Chaos" removes this element entirely, substituting a bogus after school special "warning" while all they really wanted to do was show some girls getting cut up real good. There's nothing else to "Chaos", it's simply a film that exists to show the audience two brutal murders.

I agree, this is exactly the purpose of the film and the intentions of the film-makers. So what? It's a horror\exploitation flick. Moral values or "afterschool special moral of the story" lessons are secondary to the slicing and dicing, and rightfully so.

It should also be noted that both "LHOTL" and "Chaos" share their plot with Bergman's "Virgin Spring", which itself is derived from a folk tale. So I don't think it's the violence that Ebert had a problem with, it was because "Chaos" presented the violence as if it were pornography.

Indeed, and again I see nothing wrong with that, except that Ebert cannot (seemingly) appreciate this genre of horror. There are flicks out there twice as sick, brutal and meaningless.

I still believe Ebert has a problem with "violence against women" with or without context. I would be interested in tracking down some of his reviews of films that contain particularly nasty sexual violence and see what he thought. Will be interesting.




"What's really cruel is killing those poor vegetables that can't run away." - flynwolf

reply

Well, if that's what you want to read, then you could read his review of "I Spit On Your Grave", that was one of his big time crusades. Also "Prom Night". His book "I Hated Hated Hated Hated This Movie" is nothing but reviews he wrote of bad films, and it has a lot of stuff in it.

And as for the purpose of horror films being to show girls getting cut up, I find it kind of sad that it would be "rightfully so". Why not men, too? What is it about girls getting cut up that excites you, personally? And if the plot is secondary, why bother with a plot at all? Just assemble ninety minutes of woman after woman being sliced up, and call it a film.

reply

Well, if that's what you want to read, then you could read his review of "I Spit On Your Grave", that was one of his big time crusades. Also "Prom Night". His book "I Hated Hated Hated Hated This Movie" is nothing but reviews he wrote of bad films, and it has a lot of stuff in it.

Thanks for the info dude.

And as for the purpose of horror films being to show girls getting cut up, I find it kind of sad that it would be "rightfully so".

In this particular sub-genre yes, don't get me wrong I enjoy a wide range of other horror genres (namely "suspenseful" Korean\Japanese ghost type flicks, also classics like The Thing).

Why not men, too? What is it about girls getting cut up that excites you, personally?

Either\either it doesn't bother me. Many gruesome horror flicks I own dudes get it just as bad as chicks. Don't jump to conclusions that because many horror films feature predominantly female victims it is automatically misogynistic in nature. The film-makers aren't misogynists, they are simply following the staples or forumlas of the slasher genre. One of my fav horror movies of all time Halloween pretty much pioneered this trend.

And if the plot is secondary, why bother with a plot at all? Just assemble ninety minutes of woman after woman being sliced up, and call it a film.

Because that is the nature of brain-switched-off entertainment, I like my thinking cinema to but I don't like it mixed with my rape and murder.

And I own such films (plotless), check out the August Underground series or the Guinea Pig series of pseudo-snuff extreme horror flicks. Good wholesome stuff.





"What's really cruel is killing those poor vegetables that can't run away." - flynwolf

reply

Ebert is a complete f-ing idiot. He whines away attempting to place social significance where none exists and creating causes- poor abused women- for no apparent reason. What- does he think this is a way to pick up chicks?

He sure does make a great John Belushi look-alike.

The killer from 7even could have used him for one of the deadly sins- I can think of no other use for this fat tub of useless overblown lard.

reply

You are probably thinking of Ebert's review of I Spit on Your Grave. He gave it zero stars and basically reviewed the audience (which he claimed were on the side of the rapists) rather than the film itself.

reply

Hey polyester-queen.

Interesting re: audience position

I think it's quite a skill to make genuinely sympathetic characters who are violent criminals. ISOYG certainly does not do that. Even though the scene near the end in the bathtub makes you squirm (well us dudes at least).

As for the zero stars, I'm not sure which post you're refering to. I was vaugley aware that he gave ISOYG this rating but he also gave Chaos zero stars. Shame to let misguided personal bias to get in the way of more objective reviewing (if such a thing is possible of course).

UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

I was referring to the fact that you said he hated Last House on the Left, and I suggested that maybe you were thinking of his review for I Spit on Your Grave.

As for Chaos, it is a terrible film but not necessarily for the reasons that Ebert gives. I found the rape/murder scenes to be effective (in that they left me devastated), but the rest of the film was amateurish and the ending was just plain awful because the filmmakers were trying too hard to make their film different from Last House on the Left at the very last minute.

Much better is the official remake of Last House, which started off kinda cheesy (in a bad way), but turned out to be pretty good once the two girls met up with the bad guys. And the rape scene in the remake is the only one that actually made me cry. But the difference between me and Ebert (even though he did like the remake) is that I actually LIKE feeling this way -- I relish these scenes because they make me feel human. And they make the later revenge all the more sweet.

reply

Congratulations, you have proven you have no idea what you're talking about - Ebert frequently defends LHOTL, including in the review of Chaos. He hates movies that portray violence for no apparent purpose whatsoever other than to enable sickos to get off, like this.

reply

Congratulations, you have proven you have no idea what you're talking about - Ebert frequently defends LHOTL, including in the review of Chaos. He hates movies that portray violence for no apparent purpose whatsoever other than to enable sickos to get off, like this.

Hey dude.

Perhaps. As I said above I was sure Ebert had trashed LHOTL as much as he had Chaos it was possible I had my wires crossed between the two films. I stand corrected.

As for "sickos getting off", pull the other one. Horror movies scare, gross-out, sicken and disturb people because people like to be scared, grossed-out, sickened and disturbed, that is their purpose. Just because the "purpose" is not apparent to you personally, does not mean there is no purpose.



"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

Eh, I think there's a certain line at which horror movies stop becoming horror movies and instead become torture porn, and I think Chaos is the most extreme example of the latter that exists (at least, in films that weren't made in Japan). But W/E.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050818/COMMENTARY/508190304

There's something you might be interested in, where the filmmaker wrote a big letter to Ebert and Ebert replies. There's a bunch more in there about why he believes Last House on the Left is good and Chaos isn't, if you're interested.

reply

Eh, I think there's a certain line at which horror movies stop becoming horror movies and instead become torture porn, and I think Chaos is the most extreme example of the latter that exists (at least, in films that weren't made in Japan). But W/E.

Ahhhh, "torture porn" such as SUPER hardcore ultra gory flicks like Hostel and the Saw series am I right?

Fortunately Chaos doesn't even come close to being anywhere near the example of the most "extreme horror" flicks out there (American included).

If you have the time I'd be interested what you think of the below article;

http://explodingkinetoscope.blogspot.com/2007/06/critical-disconnect-120-days-of-hostel.html


Thanks for the Ebert\David Defalco link although I did read it a while ago. I'll re-read it tonight for the LHOTL references which I obviously missed the first time around.

Cheers.




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

So since Ebert is so against violence against women, how come you gave a 2 thumbs up for Irreversible which has a almost 10 min rape scene. :S

"You Think I Give A Flying *beep* About A Dead Nun?"

reply

Are you talking to me or the Senator?



"Gah, shut up and rape her or something." - angrymidget

reply

sepsism ...


While I disagree with most of your points entirely, I'd just like to point out that your reactions to these arguments are sound, even if a bit off-putting. Personally, I take a side with Ebert, not because it's an exercise in exploiting brutality, but because a movie like this makes me feel like there's nothing to look forward to. I have never seen Chaos, but through the descriptions of those scenes, it really creates the impression of putting violence on the screen just for the sake of being disgusting. You also pointed out that it was sort of the point of "Chaos," which not only puts the film in a bad light, but the filmmakers as well, as well as the people who believe in this movie.

I enjoy very, very dark movies, and I enjoy the ones that go so far into creating a near-hopeless atmosphere. A couple of movies that have done that are 'No Country for Old Men,' and 'The Dark Knight.' Now, I fully realize comparing these more mainstream movies to an independent film is wildly unfair, mostly because Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, and Christopher Nolan are enormously respected and gifted filmmakers, while David De(something) is making a name for himself. But what all these movies have in common is the idea of nihilism, and the effects put on the people who are faced with it. All the characters involved with these movies, Anton Chiguhr, The Joker, and Chaos, are all textbook psychopaths. There is no real plan, they are all 'agents of chaos.' They all juggle the idea of nihilism and it's effect ... but while 'No Country' and 'Dark Knight' explore the elements of such an anarchist and nihilist ideal and the games that come about in exploiting their understanding of the darkness in peoples' hearts, 'Chaos' has struck a chord with many a viewer of pure, unadulterated nihilism ... which is utter Chaos with no rhyme, reason, or solution. It simply dives in to it's intense observation of two very brutal, vicious, and evil murders and sits proudly of it's disregard for humanity ... as if we are all just players in the world of the psychotic.

I understand that many people like these kind of movies because of it's exploitation, and the tickling sensation of a psychopath unleashing his outrage at any moment for no apparent reason. Chaos most definitely plays to the crowd of people who are just looking for a bloodbath with no real brain function. I get that. What Ebert is saying is that the movie takes itself to a darker place than human exploitation. The movie performs as, like he says, an exercise in inhumane, sadistic brutality with no hope of coming out alive. It looks upon it's characters as objects in a psychotic whirlpool, and only those who are not chosen will survive. It's gross, sickening, and disturbing, and for a purpose which is ugly, and sad. I think that's what most people are getting at.

Sorry ... what once started out as a compliment ended up as an argument ... but let me finish.

I do enjoy the fact that you do address your opinion with knowledge and opinion, rather than ... well, Chaos. I think it's something that many people who post on this site can learn ... respect and the art of grounded debate. So, bravo to you ...


... even though you're so, so wrong :D

reply

"Regardless of context?" What exactly are you talking about in the nature of context? If you/he means that showing explicit nudity or a woman being violently murdered without ANY reason, that it's done just because the filmaker can and wants to, then yeah! I'd be offended by it too. Even just to show a stupid stereotype gets my blood boiling, but the same is true of both men and women. I hate it when writers, directors, and studios dumb down there stories!

If you mean something like the opening of Scream, I liked that scene. It set up the world of the film wonderfully, for Ebert is a "..you know the drill." kind of a scene. He wasn't offended by it.

I'd like to see a lot more strong women in films; i.e. more Ripley's, Erin Brockovich's, etc.

By the way, Ebert gave Last House... 3 1/2 stars saying, "(It) is a powerful narrative, told so directly and strongly that the audience (mostly in the mood for just another good old exploitation film) was rocked back on its psychic heels." He likes a "slasher" flick that at least tries to psychologically challenging, not gruesome because it can.

"Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

reply

"Regardless of context?" What exactly are you talking about in the nature of context?

"In the nature of context" - as in killing for fun and profit, regardless of, or external to "motive".

If you/he means that showing explicit nudity or a woman being violently murdered without ANY reason, that it's done just because the filmaker can and wants to, then yeah! I'd be offended by it too.

That is your preference.

Even just to show a stupid stereotype gets my blood boiling, but the same is true of both men and women. I hate it when writers, directors, and studios dumb down there stories!

This isn't "dumbed down" at all, films such as this are more straight up and realistic than any "dumbed down" slasher sh#t coming out of Hollywood.

If you mean something like the opening of Scream, I liked that scene. It set up the world of the film wonderfully, for Ebert is a "..you know the drill." kind of a scene. He wasn't offended by it.

I'll admit to enjoying the opening of Scream. Watching Drew getting butchered was great!

I'd like to see a lot more strong women in films; i.e. more Ripley's, Erin Brockovich's, etc.

There are a couple of strong "lead" women in this flick to, one of them is even a real victim of sexual abuse. Both fist-time acting jobs. I thought they did pretty well considering. Have you seen this film personally?

By the way, Ebert gave Last House... 3 1/2 stars saying, "(It) is a powerful narrative, told so directly and strongly that the audience (mostly in the mood for just another good old exploitation film) was rocked back on its psychic heels." He likes a "slasher" flick that at least tries to psychologically challenging, not gruesome because it can./

Ebert might possibly be an unintentional hypocrite. I find it difficult to accept that someone can praise a film like LHOTL and then slam a film like Chaos (the latter essentially being a modern re-telling of the same story). Then again the guy does watch a crazy amount of movies. Don't get me wrong I respect him and his opinion. But that doesn't mean his opinion shouldn't be deconstructed and challenged every now and then.

Chaos is no Oscar winning flick by any stretch of the imagination and it surprises me Ebert had even heard of it let alone watched it given it's obscure nature. So respect to the man for this also.

I would be genuinely interested in discussing horror films with you further. Let me know :)


Cheers.




"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin

reply

Firewalker220, this conversation got me interested in LHOTL again so watched it last night (for the first time in about 10 years).

I've started up a thread on the LHOTL board here http://imdb.com/title/tt0068833/board/flat/89916930 covering some of the differences.

I challenge you to watch these two films one after the other, then come back and tell me Ebert doesn't need to lay off the crack pipe.

The statement "psychologically challenging, not gruesome because it can." is false when comparing the two. One must ultimately apply one or the other to both films equally.




"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin

reply

You only need to read eberts review of Noe's 'IRREVERSIBLE' to see that this claim simply isn't true - the context is everything.

reply

Thanks for the link dude.




"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin

reply

Sigh. I know I don't have to defend Ebert's honor, but you are the one perverting his context. He felt that Blue Velvet was a bad film undeserving of Rossellini's humilations; he was careful to point out that this content would have worked if the material justified it.

Your above comments about Ebert not wanting violence in films is just plain wrong. He gave the original Dawn of the Dead four stars and called it the greatest horror film of all time. He also gave Last House on the Left four stars, and that WAS garbage.

reply

Sigh. I know I don't have to defend Ebert's honor, but you are the one perverting his context. He felt that Blue Velvet was a bad film undeserving of Rossellini's humilations; he was careful to point out that this content would have worked if the material justified it.

Which it (the material) clearly did. It furthers the evil of Frank Booth's character. From memory Siskle explains this to him at the time. He argues that Lynch exactly didn't have a gun to Rossellini's head.

Your above comments about Ebert not wanting violence in films is just plain wrong. He gave the original Dawn of the Dead four stars and called it the greatest horror film of all time. He also gave Last House on the Left four stars, and that WAS garbage.

I didn't imply all violence, I meant violence-against-women specifically. That's just my observation (thus far). He also thought highly of the much more graphic and sexually-violent Irreversible.

Check out this recent thread on some of his "zero star" reviews.

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/flat/100604123?d=100604123

There is some discussion about Ebert in relation to sexually violent films such as the craptactular I Spit on Your Grave.

Can you be a little more specific as to why you felt LHOTL was "garbage"? And it's begs the question why you are on the Chaos boards? An arguably inferior "unofficial remake".




UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

Just to throw in my two cents....

Personally I find it very odd that Ebert gave Wolf Creek zero stars and slammed it for its violence against women when he gave Last House on the Left 3 1/2. I thought Last House had some good elements but personally I found Wolf Creek to be far more disturbing and realistic. The villain in that film was more terrifying then all of Last House's joking crackheads put together. I actually had a hard time sleeping the night after I saw Wolf Creek... I doubt I will have the same problem with Last House on the Left.

I'm not trying to put you down for your opinion, mind, it's fine if you like it. I just find it very bizarre that Ebert would slam a film like Wolf Creek, which had excellent production values and just as much if not more character development as Last House for its violence against women when Last House is arguably more exploitative and graphically violent.

I respect Ebert's opinion most of the time; I think he's a quick-witted and clever writer, so I usually enjoy reading his reviews if only for his facility with words, but he seems to have this peculiar bias against a lot of horror that does not feature 'comedy' or parodic elements as tension relievers. Examples of his favor for horror movies that DO feature comedy are Last House on the Left, with its pathologically stupid cops, and Scream, which was a parody of horror movies but featured just as much sickening and sadistic violence as any of the films it mocks, yet he is deeply disturbed and disliked a film like Wolf Creek that played it completely straight and had basically nothing to relieve the awful cruelty on-screen. Personally I hate Scream and I was disappointed by Last House, but enjoyed Wolf Creek. I think Ebert prefers films where you CAN say, "it's just a movie". The more realistic or non-humorous horror films seem to make him very uncomfortable, so he condemns them out of hand, without, I think, really evaluating them fairly. I've not seen Chaos, so I can't say if that is what happened, but I do think it happened with Wolf Creek and it has always made me a bit angry that he dismissed what I think is one of the better modern horrors so flippantly.

reply

varialectio-

While I agree that Wolf Creek I think you might have missed the point on one little detail: Last House was about the loss of humanity on both the murderers and finally the parents of the victims whereas Wolf Creek was basically just about some psychopath who targets people who go backpacking and kills them horribly. So basically, despite the fact that Wolf Creek was the superior film in terms of production quality it was pretty much crap in every other regard. I'm not saying it wasn't effective but it was also uncomfortably nasty and vicious, which would be fine if there were any point to it. I basically felt like I was watching a group of people in their 20s I couldn't stand for the first half and then got to see them kidnapped and tortured in the second half and then horribly murdered in the last half. Or at least I think that's how the whole movie goes, I haven't seen Wolf Creek since it first came out a while back. I do remember the whole "head on a stick thing" which was, arguably, the most effective kill in the entire movie and the one that made the movie come at least a bit close to being something aside from trash. But I'm digressing and have procrastinated on my paper long enough. Feel free to bitch at me about what I got wrong and what I simply left out, I look forward to it.

This is the American Dream in action

reply

"Ebert has a problem with this film because Ebert has problems with any portyrals of violence or humilitation against women, regardless of context."

Really? That's interesting, because Roger Ebert wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", and there's a scene in that movie where a lesbian gets a gun put into her mouth, and the trigger is pulled.

I've always felt a bit uncomfortable watching that scene, not because of the gore, but because of what it suggests, although I love the rest of the movie.

D.


Suzuki Samurai, you Bensonhurst piece of *beep*

reply

How did this one escape me?!? Sorry for the late reply.

Really? That's interesting, because Roger Ebert wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", and there's a scene in that movie where a lesbian gets a gun put into her mouth, and the trigger is pulled.

Interesting indeed! I suppose shooting women is more "acceptable" to Ebert than beating them and raping them with knives. Hey I can only go off what I heard Ebert say (during a convo with Siskle on Blue Velvet) not to mention other material of his I have read. Perhaps his views have changed as he has aged, who knows. All I know is that he appeared (at the time) to have a bias against films with such content. How he even came to watch Chaos in the first place I'll never know, he gets kudos for that at least.

I've always felt a bit uncomfortable watching that scene, not because of the gore, but because of what it suggests, although I love the rest of the movie.

I'll have to check it out sometime.

Cheers.




UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

Roger did NOT claim that making an actress appear naked and bruised was deplorable. He said that the movie was not of high enough quality to support the extremity of the incident or the performance. It is therefore the definition of exploitation. And you are surely insane to claim that Ebert objects to any film depicting violence towards women. He is fine with them as long as they deplore violence towards women. Those that advocate it, or are neutral towards it, he rightly condemns. But it occurs that no one can be as obtuse as your posts reveal you to be, so you are doubtless a troll. Good one: you got me.

reply

Troll? Yes because all I've done is throw inane ad hominems around and attack people (Good one).

I would hazard a guess you would use such an ad hominem label yourself based purely on the motivation that you simply disagreed with my point, might I suggest subscribing to some sort of reason or logic Sir? Or perhaps better yet refraining from ridiculous and unfounded insults entirely.

As for the topic at hand, I will transcribe the Siskel and Ebert bit on Blue Velvet when I get home. It has been a while since I saw it last but I'm quite sure (from memory) that he directly attacks Lynch for his treatment of actress Rossellini (regardless of the context of the material), to which Siskel replies "I doubt he held a gun to her head", as I appear to have quoted back in September '07.

And for the record, in my original post I drew parallels in Ebert's apparent dislike of two very different films, both of which featured sexual violence. If you had continued to read you would have seen a reference made by another poster to Ebert's feelings on Last House on the Left (which also contains sexual violence and ill treatment of women) and that he, apparently, gave it generally positive reviews. To which I conceded the point, as I was unaware of his feelings on the film.

This begs the question though, given that Chaos and LHOTL are essentially the same film, why be positive about one and not the other? The scenario and themes are the same, and some great extent the intentions also. Hell, originally LHOTL was panned by Wes Craven as an "ultra violent porno" before the script was re-re-re-written. Sounds like exploitation to me.



BRASS KNUCKLE ABORTIONS'R'US

reply

That's not true. In the documentary Going to Pieces, both Siskel and Ebert trashed the entire slasher genre, claiming that it was misogynistic. They even went so far as to say that these slasher filmakers hate women. One of the films they cited, I believe, was He Knows You're Alone, which is unbelieveably tame by horror standards. I don't find it at all odd that Ebert didn't rate LHOTL lower, because it had already been accepted as an artistic piece and he jumped on that band wagon. Personally, I didn't like Chaos, but I don't find LHOTL much more palatable. I don't see how stabbing a woman until she's eviscerated and then pulling her entrails out is any more artistic than stabbing her in the vagina. It's all the same. Some people like it, some don't. Ebert just seems to need public opinion to help him decide what is art, and what is exploitation. Just my two cents.

reply

Ebert is often contradictory when it comes to movies. For your information he in fact LOVED the original Last House On The Left. Yet his review for I Spit On Your Grave is even worse than his review for Chaos. He paints the entire audience as sub human scum. Strange thing is, I always considered Spit far less perverse and poorly made than Last House.
His review for Blue Velvet does seem centered entirely around poor old Rossellini, as if nothing else occured in the film.

Anyway, his review of Chaos is spot on, but I've always found his admitted admiration for the original Last House as a strange, weird stand out in his career.

reply

Hey dude.

Yeah I was corrected on his stance on LHOTL earlier. Very contradictory indeed.

Maybe his love\hate of a film is dictated by what mood he's in at the time, like the rest of us.

There's always a time and a place for "no point" entertainment like Chaos and others.


COGNITIVE LUST OF MUTILATION

reply

I bet you will read this review and go whoops...I was wrong now that Ebert has said he enjoyed "Antichrist"

reply

Well, the man liked Last House on the Left apparently! (discussed earlier in the thread). So who knows how his mind works. His argument is lack or "substance" or "reason" but Chaos is essentially a carbon copy of LHOTL.

Re: Antichrist, I'm really looking forward to seeing this flick.


UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

What about this one?

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050721/REVIEWS/50712001

His praise surprised me, even more so because it must be the only good review I ever read of 'The Devil's Rejects', at least in 'mainstream' media. I didn't see it by the way, and probably never will.

Allthough I'm not a big fan of Ebert and rarely share his tastes in cinema, I might have a similar sensibility towards violence in films. I don't enjoy watching violence, but it can be usefull or necessary to get a certain (artistic, moral, social, political, even esthetic) point across.

I hate Tarantino, but don't mind Miike. Thought 'Antichrist' was ok, and certainly wasn't offended by the mutilation-scene. 'Salo', why not. Old Cronenberg, yes. 'Irreversible' was too gimmicky for me, didn't see the point. The thing is, if I don't see the point in showing the suffering of the victim other than for my enjoyment, I can't stand it, it really upsets me. I did like 'Dans ma peau' a lot, you know that one? And I adore 'Un Chien Andalou' (a very violent film if you ask me, really made to shock, in several ways). 'Drive' was ok, but the gore (elevator-scene) annoyed me. 'Pusher' I liked. 'Deliverance'. 'Angst'. Even 'Aftermath' wasn't too bad. But I'm wandering off.

It's really not the 'explicitness' of the violence that will make me like or dislike it, just the context, and how it is being filmed. For example, I'm still offended by 'Dirty Harry' and 'Death Wish', yes I am :). Or 'Saving Private Ryan', 'cause I find its attitude dubious.

Maybe this whole idea of mine is just some sort of 'civilised' cover-up not to have to cope with the fact that deep down I'm being drawn to violent imagery, but won't admit it to myself. Could be. I'm definitely curious enough to read through this whole thread without even having seen Chaos (or planning to do so).

Of course, I know all of the films I've mentioned are tame (in terms of explicit gore) compared to 'August Underground' and stuff, but I don't really feel like watching those. Chances are small I'll like'em.

I do like it when a movie takes me to dark places, but preferably psychologically or philosophically (Chabrol! Bresson! Early Polanski! Hitchcock!). It's easy to shock through explicit imagery. And yes, I do wonder if it's healthy to keep on pushing the bounderies, just for entertainment's sake (for art's sake, that's something else).

By the way, was it you who posted this? http://explodingkinetoscope.blogspot.be/2007/06/critical-disconnect-120-days-of-hostel.html
Interesting read.

If someone would hand you a real snuff-movie, would you watch it? And why? Or maybe you already have?

Toodeloo.

reply

[deleted]

Then Ebert is a hypocrite because he gave Last House On The Left (1972) 3 stars. He was also the one who wrote the screenplay for Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls which had violence against women.

reply

Yeah I could never figure out his horror hypocrisy, LHOTL was as much exploitation as other flicks he trashed. He was certainly uneven on the genre. I liked the man though and I enjoyed reading his reviews. RIP.


UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

That is really awful. Why do you defend a movie that so obviously has nothing more going for it than sick exploitation?

reply

Get off the moral high-horse Senator_Corleone.

That should be obvious. Because I'm a fan of "sick exploitation".

And for the record, there's exploitation out there 10 tons sicker than this relatively tame flick.




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

So that makes it okay, I guess?

If you're a fan of sick exploitation, fine. But it's worthless and below the level of pornography, and you should realize that.

Film can be entertaining, sometimes, rarely, it can be art. Chaos and films of its ilk really have nothing to offer and would be more useful if the negative was cut into guitar picks.


I guess it's pointless though to say these obvious things to you, judging by the asinine quote you have at the bottom of your post. What is Experiment in Homicide, anyway?

reply

Why is this even a moral discussion about what is "okay" and what isn't? We're talking about a movie here, not real life. Unless your gearing up to preach the hilarious "violent films cause social harm" message.

"Worth" is subjective, what is worthless to you is not worthless to all. It is of worth to me (entertainment).

Below the level of Pornography? What softcore crap have you been watching?! Interesting "argument".

They have nothing to offer you, because you don't personally see any entertainment qualities in them.

Can you give me some other examples of the same ilk that you have or haven't seen? To confirm you have in fact seen Chaos yourself yes?


Why would it be pointless? Do I strike you as a particularly unreasonable person?

Amusing you would consider it asinine, given that you don't even know what it means? The quote in my signature is from a Cannibal Corpse song called "An Experiment in Homicide", which roughly quotes a passage from an interview with David Berkowitz, which was originally "I didn't want to hurt them, I just wanted to kill them".




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

I haven't seen Chaos. I don't plan to. Zero stars from Roger Ebert is all I need to know that a movie where a woman is forced to vomit on her own nipple after it has been severed from her breast and another is stabbed to make her vagina and anus "one hole" is not something I want to see. I'd rather watch something like Close Encounters of the Third Kind which says something hopeful and insightful about life than something celebrating death, perversion, violence and pain.

If I don't plan on seeing Man Bites Dog, a highly-respected film with some of the most ugly scenes ever put on film, why would I see Chaos, which was held in contempt by most people and has vanished into obscurity?

I think certain responsibilities come with the privilege to make a feature-length film. Chaos and other movies like it -- i.e. movies that use horrible images of violence and sadism for the sheer purpose of showing them -- don't follow through on those responsibilities. So I don't waste my time with them.

And yes, you do strike me as an unreasonable person. To personally message me so I would respond to your post is something an unreasonable person would do. I think it was obvious I didn't want to spend any more time talking about this garbage movie.

In short, don't do it again.

reply

Fair enough on the PM, I just wanted to confirm you had in fact not actually seen this movie (as I had suspected).

What I can't get my head around is, if you don't even plan on seeing these films, why feel the need to come to these boards and complain about them? And basically attack innocent people who simply enjoy simplistic horror flicks?

A chronic superiority complex methinks.

And Man Bites Dog doesn't come anywhere near close in portraying the "most ugly scenes" ever put on film, it is an excellent film though with a terrific sense of black humor. I highly recommend you check it out (and then this one).

Cheers.





"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

I think certain responsibilities come with the privilege to make a feature-length film. Chaos and other movies like it -- i.e. movies that use horrible images of violence and sadism for the sheer purpose of showing them -- don't follow through on those responsibilities. So I don't waste my time with them.

Oops almost missed this one. If you don't wish to spend your time on them that's fine...

...But are you seriously attacking the "responsibilities" of film-makers of violent cinema? You can't be serious. What about Hollywood productions that glamorize sadistic violence for the purpose of entertainment, instead of portraying such content in a more realistic light?

Ultimately Chaos is a sick entertainment-movie in disguise of some higher "moral message" film about women taking more responsibility for their own safety, but it won't be received like this in the majority of cases.





"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

I read Ebert's review of this film to mean that basically, films that feature sadistic violence can be worthwhile if there's some sort of a message or a meaning behind it. Clearly, he doesn't see this film as having that.

I took a Literature of Horror class in college and we spent a week discussing films like this. If a filmaker is just sitting around saying "I wonder what the most violent thing I can come up with", well, again, is that somehow anything more than just sadism for sadism's taste.

Look, I majored in journalism, so I'm not going to trample the 1st Amendment rights and say "This film shouldn't have been made". But as Ebert said, "Why do we NEED films like this?"

There are plenty of ways to send a message about personal responsibility without simply showing the most vile, graphic scenes you can come up with, which is what this film seems to do, in my opinon.

I also think it's a marketing gimmick. Love him or hate him, Roger Ebert may very well be the best known movie critic in the country, and if he's going to rip your film the way he did, it's going to create publicity. You're going to get a lot of people--like me I suppose--who say "What's the point of this film?" And then you have the people on the other side of the fence who will defrend it. BAM. Instant publicity.

I'm not saying one side is "right" or "wrong" because, hey we all have opinions. But at least most of this thread is a somewhat civil debate, which is always good. I do appreciate, for example, Sepsism, that you're not like so many people here who say things like "You hate this movie because you suck! Loser! Go away!" We may disagree on this film, but at least we can articulate ourselves like mature adults, no?

reply

Hey pbohn1.

I read Ebert's review of this film to mean that basically, films that feature sadistic violence can be worthwhile if there's some sort of a message or a meaning behind it. Clearly, he doesn't see this film as having that.

I agree. However what I believe Ebert fails to realize is a "message" (in the traditional sense) in a horror movie is entirely superfluous. Horror movie purpose, intention, story, morals (regardless of quality, or even existence) are all headed in one direction. Death, carnage and horror.

The film-makers of Chaos specifically attempted to cover their butts (rather poorly) from this argument by placing the "disclaimer" at the start about how many careless young women are killed yada yada yada (pretending to care basically). For someone who entirely supports this kind of film-making, I don't support the tactic of trying to avoid responsibility for making a horror movie devoid of purpose or message. It's visceral entertainment on a basic level, run with it.

Violence unto itself is a valid form of entertainment, and has been since the dawn of man.

I took a Literature of Horror class in college and we spent a week discussing films like this. If a filmaker is just sitting around saying "I wonder what the most violent thing I can come up with", well, again, is that somehow anything more than just sadism for sadism's taste.

Indeed, violence for violence sake, sick for sick sake. This genre caters to those who are perhaps incapable of experiencing fear, and have replaced the emotional response with shock and disgust.

Look, I majored in journalism, so I'm not going to trample the 1st Amendment rights and say "This film shouldn't have been made". But as Ebert said, "Why do we NEED films like this?"

Why not? Why do we need music? Why do we need film at all?? Why do we need any forms of art? Does art fundamentally "better" humanity in some way? If the answer is yes, then you have answered your own (Ebert's) question.

However my answer is simple, demand = supply. There are tons of people out there who love and enjoy and are entertained by gruesome horror movies.

That is the utility of gruesome horror movies. Or exploitation films for that matter.

There are plenty of ways to send a message about personal responsibility without simply showing the most vile, graphic scenes you can come up with, which is what this film seems to do, in my opinon.

The "personal responsibility" factor with this film is somewhat bogus (IMHO) and is a ruse to showcase graphic violence (which it essentially fails to deliver on anyway, depending on how jaded you are). Whatever "plot device" a film-maker employs to achieve the blood-letting is ultimately of no consequence.

I also think it's a marketing gimmick. Love him or hate him, Roger Ebert may very well be the best known movie critic in the country, and if he's going to rip your film the way he did, it's going to create publicity. You're going to get a lot of people--like me I suppose--who say "What's the point of this film?" And then you have the people on the other side of the fence who will defrend it. BAM. Instant publicity.

Absolutely, although I don't know if they had planned it this way. They certainly milked it for all it was worth by taking on Ebert over his zero star review. Have you seen the point-by-point responses they made?

I'm not saying one side is "right" or "wrong" because, hey we all have opinions. But at least most of this thread is a somewhat civil debate, which is always good. I do appreciate, for example, Sepsism, that you're not like so many people here who say things like "You hate this movie because you suck! Loser! Go away!" We may disagree on this film, but at least we can articulate ourselves like mature adults, no?

Yes indeed, reason and civility is of the highest priority. Ad hominem attacks for subjective opinions benefit no one.

Also good to see you didn't use the horribly invalid "torture porn" term in your response. That's just an entirely different debate.





UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

Underneath this article (http://explodingkinetoscope.blogspot.be/2007/06/critical-disconnect-120-days-of-hostel.html) that I think you have posted here, someone left the following comment:

"I'm not sure Torture Porn as an expression is necessarily implying that the movies are sexualizing torture. I think they're just saying that the movies are only loosely concerned with arranging a superfluous story on their way to the meat of the piece, lengthy, elaborate sequences of torture. The "Porn" in Torture Porn is metaphorical.

Also, I recall when Con Air came out, Entertainment Weekly or Roger Ebert referred to that movie as Action Porn or Violence Porn, for basically the same reason."

I agree more or less. I'm sure you don't. Hit me :)

reply

Hey bertdockx

Always good to revisit old threads

Sorry to suddenly interrupt this past conversation :) but from reading this thread, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy, so I just can't understand your praise for Saving Private Ryan. What a stupid and dishonnest movie (from what I remember). Sentimental war propaganda, and the attempt to be 'realistic' is offensive to me. War as some kind of attraction in a theme park. Did you see 'Come and see'? Check it out if you haven't, I think it might interest you.

Praise for Saving Private Ryan? I don't recall the context (and I don't want to scroll up to confirm) but I suppose because I enjoy mindless action films as much as I enjoy mindless brain-switch-off slasher flicks with severed tits flying at the screen as much as I enjoy intellectual endeavours. I am a man of many conflicting tastes. Thanks for the Come and See rec, I haven't seen it but I will look in to it for sure. On the subject of WW2 film/television, I am rather fond of "Band of Brothers". Far superior to SPR IMHO.

And, completely unrelated, when you were talking about 'Men behind the sun', you seemed to mention having (had?) a collection of videos with real executions, animal cruelty etc. I've always wondered - and this is not to judge you or something, not at all, just pure curiosity and interest - why people would want to watch those. Could you explain me (if you really haven't got anything better to do :) ) what you get out of watching stuff like that?

This is so long ago now and so much of a conflict with my current values it's difficult to say for sure exactly why I collected and distributed such material. I probably started doing this when I was 12 or 13 and I'm in my 30s now. In all honesty I think it was purely morbid curiosity, I certainly never derived any genuine entertainment value from said videos and I have never experienced a lack of empathy in my life to date. For the record I absolutely deplore real world violence (and praise fictional violence of course) and I stay away from anything real as it disturbs, sickens and saddens me. I came full circle back to fictional extremes again and I've stayed there.

As for the torture porn subject, I'm going to stay away from that as semantically speaking it f#cks me off something wicked.

Cheers



UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

sounds like a barrel of laughs ,i like horror films but i9 draw the line at films about abuse-ill skip this onewen its shown on horror channel later 2night

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!




reply



Barrel of laughs is one way to describe it (depending on how black your sense of humor is).

Abuse? As in murder and necrophilia? I suppose you could call that abuse.



UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

Well described. However, before you go moralizing about hypocrisy you should think more clearly. A hypocrite dishonestly says one thing and does another. Anthonysevere is being entirely honest--just the opposite of hypocrisy. Nor is there something inconsistent in wanting to know what the scenes are without wanting to see them. For example, I am interested in the Manson murders but I do not require to see the autopsy photographs.

reply

Well described. However, before you go moralizing about hypocrisy you should think more clearly. A hypocrite dishonestly says one thing and does another. Anthonysevere is being entirely honest--just the opposite of hypocrisy. Nor is there something inconsistent in wanting to know what the scenes are without wanting to see them. I am interested in the Manson murders but I do not require to see the autopsy photographs.

A fair point, but (in the context of film specifically) I have no time for people who wish to pass judgment on things they have not experienced, and going so far as to even outright refuse to experience for themselves. It's a no-brainer, having murders "described" to someone over a message board lacks context and thus meaning, thus value.

Only through thorough analysis can one gain a better understanding of the subject at hand, which would most likely involve you watching any footage of said Manson murders (if any existed?) as well as studying autopsy photos (if they were available to you). Studying all available information is the way to knowledge, not some kind of half-assed self-censorship or whatever it is you appear to be preaching here.

Lastly, one more warning on the personal attacks (AUM board). I won't be giving you any more of my time if this kind of immaturity continues. OK?



BRASS KNUCKLE ABORTIONS'R'US

reply

Ebert calls those scenes too brutal to talk about? Hell, I call that a slow saturday night. Off to look into this August Underground's Mordum. I hope it lives up to the hype, sepsism.

reply

You sound pretty jaded as it is.

Beware any hype of any description, it can and does kill anything.

The AUs are what they are. Low-budget shot-on-video Pseudo-snuff. Don't expect linear narrative or anything remotely traditional. It certainly delivers in the sick depravity department but be prepared to wade through some filler.


"So much flesh, so many different pleasures"

reply

Well if the make up and effects are any good there will at least be that. I just "got" the three AUs Guess I'll find out soon how they are.

reply

They get progressively better as the films go on.

Mordum is the strongest of the three (content-wise) definitely.

Few pacing\editing issues throughout but it's all good. No fastfowarding.

I recommend a 12 pack of Heinekens to btw.


"So much flesh, so many different pleasures"

reply

Sounds like a good recommendation and one fine way to spend a day off.

reply

[deleted]

Haha yeah it occurred to me recently my peddling might be borderline shillism!

Don't get me wrong I have no affiliation with Fred Vogel or ToeTag although myself and Angrymidget have been known to chat with the crew on their forum.




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

[deleted]

That's the spirit :)



"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

[deleted]

I wouldn't say it was an enjoyable film for me personally by any stretch of the imagination (like Mordum was, if that gives you any idea).

But yes it's an extremely cruel account of Japanese war atrocities committed against the Chinese. Think the Germans were evil bastards? The Japanese make them look like pansies!

Effects aren't bad, and it's superviolent. People get beaten to death, stuck in decompression chambers etc. Oh yeah and the cat\rat death scenes if your sensitive about animal cruelty. The former scene with the cat being one of the worst things I've ever seen on film (in an actual "film" that is, minus the many hours of real war atrocities, executions, animal attacks and "other" stuff I use to have).

If you handle cruelty well you should be sweet as. But this surpassed even my sadist streaks so kind of hard to recommend unless to sick bastards or people interested in history.

What else you got on the xploited wish-list?




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

[deleted]

Note my edit of above post re: the cat scene.

hahah, i absolutely love this kind of *beep* Mordum made me feel like crap afterwards, so really dirty.

Depending on your reasons for feeling dirty, Men Behind The Sun will probably make you feel the same. Just the level of cold-hearted cruelty really got me. And by that I mean I "almost" felt something. That's good film-making in my books.

i just love pushing my boundaries. but like if you ever have seen saving Private Ryan, that part where the german guy they let go is starting to bring a knife down on one of the soldiers later on in the film and he's like "wait wait! no!" that *beep* still disturbs me to no end after all these years.

I've always been impressed by Saving Private Ryan, one of my far war films behind Platoon. Awesome acting, effects and atmosphere, really have to hand it to Spielberg. I'm always more moved by the strength of the Americans landing on Omaha beach than really disturbed by anything else. The will it takes to sacrifice that many men for a position that could have been taken a little further up the beach (apparently) is really something. Top flick.

seeing as xpolited has been banned on the tafe computers ill have to get back to you on that one! but MBTS is deffinatly on my list. have any suggestions?

Lol gaining a reputation for itself, that's always a good thing. I'd say you've seen pretty much everything else I can recommend. To be honest I've all but run out of new titles in the sicko genre. There are still a good 50 films on my to-buy list though. Latest haul coming from Amazon;

Cannibal http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910548/
Pusher http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117407/
Nil by Mouth http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119792/
The Host http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468492/
Genocyber http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158634/
Shutter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0440803/

Bit of a variety there, from Korean and Thai horror, to violent anime, to Danish drama.




"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

[deleted]

I've avoided Cannibal for a while but thought I may as well give it a shot. I'll let you know once I watch it :)

I've heard nothing but good things about The Host, although it's my understanding that the creature isn't completely the main "plot" and is only part of it. I've been really impressed by Korean film from what I've seen (which basically consists of Park Chan-wook flicks).

What's Grimm Love like? Sounds good.



"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

[deleted]

Yep the Armin Meiwes case. Interesting stuff for sure.

I bought Oldboy quite a while ago now, it kicks ass! I picked up the other remaining two in the vengeance trilogy recently, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance both of which were also pretty solid. Worth a look.



"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

[deleted]

Audition is a great film, pretty slow to begin with but it gets going and the end is a classic, although probably not as graphic as it could be (by Miike standards anyway). One of Miike's best films though IMHO.



"I don't want to hurt you, I just want to kill you" - Experiment in homicide.

reply

Sorry to suddenly interrupt this past conversation :) but from reading this thread, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy, so I just can't understand your praise for Saving Private Ryan. What a stupid and dishonnest movie (from what I remember). Sentimental war propaganda, and the attempt to be 'realistic' is offensive to me. War as some kind of attraction in a theme park. Did you see 'Come and see'? Check it out if you haven't, I think it might interest you.

And, completely unrelated, when you were talking about 'Men behind the sun', you seemed to mention having (had?) a collection of videos with real executions, animal cruelty etc. I've always wondered - and this is not to judge you or something, not at all, just pure curiosity and interest - why people would want to watch those. Could you explain me (if you really haven't got anything better to do :) ) what you get out of watching stuff like that?

Thanks

reply

Hey DeodatoJodo.

Did you read my post above?

To quote myself "He also thought highly of the much more graphic and sexually-violent Irreversible."


UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH

reply

Roger Ebert is a fat *beep* I can't believe that anyone would even begin to give a sh!t about what he has to say.

reply

I could give a sh*t about Roger Ebert, but i will say that the scenes the OP was referring to affected me like no other scene i've ever seen in a movie. The only other scene i can compare it to(in the way it affected me) was the rape scene in Irreversible, acted out by Monica Belucci.

I'm a guy who views plenty of horror movies, and nothing has ever made me FEEL like these scenes.

Stay The Course,
"W"

reply

[deleted]