MovieChat Forums > Hobo with a Shotgun (2011) Discussion > What's with all the violence against chi...

What's with all the violence against children?

posted 11 years ago by Ultimex_Varptuner
33 replies | jump to latest

For the most part, I dug this film. Sure, it's tone is exceptionally nasty - heightened by the grainy, lurid 80's look, but the burning kids thing really p***ed me off.

Sure, I've been slagged elsewhere on this site for making similar complaints against another film and for not recognising it as, seriously, 'transgressive art'.

But really, phuc that.

Entertainment, even violent entertainment, should have moral certain boundaries respected in order to safeguard against densensitising the audience. In my opinion having a laugh at burning up a bunch of innocent children is over that line.

'You punched me in the boob! Prepare to die, obviously!'

[–] Spongeyone 11 years ago

... How the hell can you miss the point of something in a movie like this so badly? His father says "go out and do something outrageous to really piss people off" so he does that. Why did you think you were supposed to be laughing at that?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mattiasflgrtll6 10 years ago

I think it was darkly humorous.
"Kids, do you like hobos?"
"YES!"
"I... HATE... hobos!!"

[–] I_am_Mangamation 11 years ago

I like to think if a movie can affect you emotionally regardless of the emotion you feel, in this case it done exactly what it said it was, then the movie has successfully done its job.

Sure you may not like it but as you said its art and if art can provide you an emotional response then truely it deservers an award.........either that or maybe just remember its fiction dont get to uptight about it, thats the for the government to do next time some *beep* with a gun desides its a good idea to kill people.........it'll happen eventually and this film will be in there house somewhere and booya banned......its a sad predictable world!!

[–] DonnyLado 11 years ago

The School Bus was a bit much.

Great Movie.

just take the shot!

[–] Evolution-X 11 years ago

Ironically enough, the date of the OP fell on a very tragic day of child murder, but the time was hours before that happened.

As for the movie part, I thought the school bus part was a bit much. I kind of chuckled during the part when the Santa clad guy was driving off and that boy was yelling "help" in the backseat.

All I need is one mic...

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

What I find interesting is that violence against kids happens every day all around the world. Somewhere out there, there is a sick person hitting a child or hurting it.
But it only becomes a problem when it is in your face in a movie. Sure the movie was probably too much, but is funny because those kids are okay, they were acting, but no one really pays much attention when real children are being hurt,
Makes you think,

One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 11 years ago

The bus scene was the most important scene in the entire film. They could have made this movie 3 years earlier than they did if they'd have just removed it. But they refused and I applaud them for it. It's my favorite scene in the film for several reasons. Wooogzy is right and the people who complained know it.

[–] Pania8407 11 years ago

I understand what you mean. As soon as i saw them running on the bus i had to look away. It was horrific. But i didn't expect nothing less from this film. It is a violent shocking film.
The other part i couldn't handle was when someone threw a flame at the woman and child hiding. I had to look away.
But overall i enjoyed the film and i probably won't ever watch it again.

[–] viking-fjord_90 11 years ago

I wasn't bugged by the bus-scene. Actually I laughed so hard 'cause I thought: *beep* did they really had the balls to put this in the moviee??".

It IS awful when children suffer in real life, it's tragic. However, it's important to seperate reality and fiction. The bus-scene isn't just senseless slaughter of kids in the movie, it actually serves as a plot-device to move the story along. And I have no problem with that at all. I commend the makers of this movie for daring to even consider using such a scene as a plot-device.

Violence in real life, no matter how small it is, isn't right.

Violence in fiction, no matter how serious it is, IS alright ('cause no one really got hurt). If that bothers you at all, then this movie simply isn't for you.

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 11 years ago

The director explained why he felt it was so important. When Drake explains to Slick that he's got to think outside the box to think of something so horrible that everyone will fear him so much they'll dare not ever mess with him. He explained he felt that was a very crucial part of the story and of Slick's character. He didn't want it in the movie just to offend people or some idiotic reason like that. It's one of the most key points in the entire film. How else would he have ever gotten the people to turn against the hobo? The movie doesn't work without it.

[–] starfish69 11 years ago

Nobody needs to have it pointed out that it's important to separate reality from fiction. Some people, myself included, feel that fictitiously torturing children to death via incineration is unacceptably gratuitous and we don't want it in our minds. I've watched many films with graphic, gratuitous violence. I'm watching "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" right now and it's hilarious. But everyone has to draw the line somewhere and torturing children is where I draw mine. I wouldn't have watched the film if I'd known that was going to happen.

So where do you draw the line? If the director felt it was necessary to advance the plot, why not have the villains kidnap a bunch of babies and cut off their arms and legs and gouge out their eyes? Wouldn't that be even more evil and therefore advance the plot more effectively? Would you enjoy seeing that? After all, it's just a movie.

[–] viking-fjord_90 11 years ago

I totally see your point, and respect it as such. However, people deal with such things differently, and some can't even see just a little blood in a movie no matter how the violence is played out (or who the victims are).

When it comes to fiction (books/movies), I draw the line when it comes to e.g. "Serbsky Movie" or what it was called. I've never seen that movie 'cause a friend of mine told there's a scene where a baby is raped. THAT is too extreme for me.

However, in Hobo With A Shotgun, the violence is mostly over the top (redicilous hence funny). The pedophile Santa got killed (I cheered). The bus scene, I didn't cheer, but I certainly laughed of disbelief.

I had no trouble with the pedophile Santa 'cause he got killed in the end. I had no trouble with the flamethrower scene, 'cause the people responsible got killed in the end. Seeing all the gruesome things they did, made me cheer even more when justice was served.

Movies and litterature is culture. Music is culture. If you censor music, movies and litterature, you show a culture of censorship (which is bad in my opinion). Film is art, no matter how bad or good. People like different things, and if you don't like something, then don't watch it. Don't like a specific song/album? Don't listen to it. Don't like a specific painting? Don't look at it. Problem solved.

[–] starfish69 11 years ago

Your advice about not listening to music or watching movies I don't like is confusing (not to mention a bit condescending) in light of the fact that I didn't even suggest censorship. In any case, how was I to know in advance that this film included the gratuitous incineration of children? As I said before, I wouldn't have watched it if I'd known that was going to happen. The fact that it's a comedy makes that scene even more depraved because it was meant to be laughed at.

So, since I couldn't go back in time and not watch that scene, I came here to IMDb to voice my opinion. That's what IMDb is for, right?

[–] ave_roma2004 11 years ago

Waaaaah. Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[–] Just_Jimmy 11 years ago

the bus scene bothered me too...not because of recent real tragedies just because violence against children isn't my bag baby.

I've always had a problem with it, however I am not going to wave a flag and get on a pedestal saying how wrong it is (no i am not calling out the OP stating that is what they did) I'm saying in general, as it's a movie you kinda have to understand what you may be getting into.

[–] g_monte 10 years ago

I always wonder what the 'acceptable' age is for a movie character to be tortured and murdered in a film. 14? 16? 18? Is burning a 20 year-old movie victim alive not "as bad" as burning a 10 year-old movie victim?

[–] ave_roma2004 10 years ago

It's a movie. Get over it.

And that was a HILARIOUS scene. Especially the music.

[–] tua07824 10 years ago

I actually liked that they had the kids die. Hollywood loves to create violent, realistic images, but they always have the child get whisked away from danger at the last second. Even though this is an ultraviolent, tongue-in-cheek exploitation film, it still has some critiques of modern life (innercity violence, lack of jobs/upward mobility, corrupt leaders, our treatment of the homeless which include many veterans of the military) and in real life children die. It's just a fact of life. It's highly stylized and borderline funny with the music, but if you have a problem with children dying in this movie, go out and volunteer at a boys and girls club or a mentor program. Try to make a difference to kids who really exist. The kids in the bus scene were probably given ice cream and treated very kindly.