As others have said, most of the reasons that you give for disliking this film are exactly what sets it apart from the norm. I can't agree that it's poorly written; if you believe it is, then I can only assume that your experience of real celluloid dreck must be mercifully minimal!
But, yes, it is "sickening, depressing, and astonishingly ugly" and it is "totally bleak and dispiriting". It's a deeply uncomfortable watch - and so it should be, given the subject-matter and the film's decision to "go there" with material that most films would prefer to avoid.
It's like the argument against censorship of violence in film. You have PG-13 films where people who are shot die cleanly, instantly, and bloodlessly. That's a lie. In representing the killing as quick, clean, and painless it misrepresents the reality of violence. It misrepresents violence as something that's "not so bad". Violence in film should be ugly, messy, and disturbing - because that is truth.
Same argument applies to this film. It's arguably a far more honest depiction of human nature than some sanitized alternative. The descent of the characters into madness and depravity is admirably unflinching, I thought, for a "Hollywood" film.
Example: the scene where one of the characters is being held captive, tied to a chair, and one of the other characters decides to take a dump on the floor of the room and leave it there with him, stinking - just because it's a nasty thing to do to a guy he hates, and it amuses him to add a little extra to the guy's suffering.
That's realistic. That's honest. It's exactly the kind of thing some people would do - and yet I can't think of another Hollywood film prepared to "go there" with such a simple, disgusting act. This film is prepared to cross a line that most film, especially Hollywood film, would shy away from - and, for that, I respect its bravery.
reply
share
Jan1968
8 years ago
Thank you, sir. Your post reflects my feelings on this film exactly. This one is almost as depressing as "The Road". It should even be more depressing, considering the story, but "The Road" was better acted and better directed, which made it more effective, IMHO.
That is not to say "The Divide" is bad in any way, because it isn't - it's just not as good as "The Road". I was impressed by all the actors, with the possible exception of Michael Biehn. I thought him slightly less believable than the others.
But make no mistake, ye who read this, the film may have it's quirks and goofs, essentially it's telling truths and it does so in an uncompromising and very effective way. There were moments I was tempted to switch off, not because the events are implausible, but because they aren't. Especially the acting of the two main antagonists I found hard to watch. Again, not because they're acting is bad, but because it isn't. They're totally believable obnoxious, threatening and menacing as they spiral into desperate depravity and sheer madness.
Normal people who finish this film will be haunted by it for some time. That's a good thing. Because they will have learned something very worth learning about human nature.
reply
share