|
|
meyerlemon (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} meyerlemon) wrote,@ 2007-08-18 23:06:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
This is xposted to LJ and JF because I must spread the gospel:
A History Of Violence is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MOVIE.
Look. I get that you can argue that it was going for "based on a graphic novel", and that some of the clunkiness could come from there, but be intentional, so I should STFU.
BUT NO.
Because Road to Perdition had some intentionally stylized stuff because it was based on a graphic novel.
Or. Like. What else? 300. Batman Begins.
(I don't read comics, so if those were not actually graphic novels, forgive me. I AM ARGUING A POINT HERE.)
ANYWAY, it is entirely possible to do BOMBASTIC-BASED-ON-GRAPHIC-NOVEL without resorting to sucking really hard. This movie, however, was unable to pull it off.
jesshelga said that the final DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE warning came, for her, when her roommates explained that William Hurt played the heavy. And indeed. His performance was from some kind of manual of acting for silent films, circa 1921. Basically, when he and Viggo - brothers in this story - first met up, I thought they were going to make out, and not in the "Haha! They're totally gonna make out now." way.
I seriously thought they were going to make out.
And this movie was SO LAME that I only kind of went "...oh, good Lord." at that thought, instead of "OMG WTF?!?"
The children in the family were terrible actors. The little one, I guess, can't be blamed for this. But the teenager! And his friend, with the UNEXPLAINED 1980s ponytail!!!!! And his teenaged nemesis, with the equally unexplained hard-on for kicking his ass!
The staircase sex made me feel awkward. Like. You know how I have the inappropriate feelings about violent men? The beginning of that scene was like 70% of the way there and then it just got weird (and it wasn't even the part where he was pseudo-choking her. HOW AWFUL IS THAT!) and then I kept thinking "WHERE ARE THEIR CHILDREN. ARE THEIR CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE?!?"
(Because I feel like coming home and seeing Daddy sort-of-but-not-quite raping Mommy on the staircase would be bad for your developing mind.)
I was very scoffy about the part where Tom/Joey went down to his brother's private lake after killing him and his henchpersons and flung the gun into the lake (YES, I'm SURE that when the feds come looking for a known member of an organized crime family and find him dead, they're totally not going to dredge the lake) and then he washed away the blood in the dirty pond water. He had an open wound. Somehow I imagine that you don't want dirty pond water in your gunshot wound. CALL ME CRAZY. And I know I was ignoring the Meaningful Overtones of that scene, what with his CROSS, and his SINS BEING WASHED AWAY blah blah blah, but DUCKS POO IN THAT WATER OKAY.
In sum. I thought this movie was going to be sort of great. And it was not. And I disapprove of that.
A History Of Violence is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MOVIE.
Look. I get that you can argue that it was going for "based on a graphic novel", and that some of the clunkiness could come from there, but be intentional, so I should STFU.
BUT NO.
Because Road to Perdition had some intentionally stylized stuff because it was based on a graphic novel.
Or. Like. What else? 300. Batman Begins.
(I don't read comics, so if those were not actually graphic novels, forgive me. I AM ARGUING A POINT HERE.)
ANYWAY, it is entirely possible to do BOMBASTIC-BASED-ON-GRAPHIC-NOVEL without resorting to sucking really hard. This movie, however, was unable to pull it off.
jesshelga said that the final DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE warning came, for her, when her roommates explained that William Hurt played the heavy. And indeed. His performance was from some kind of manual of acting for silent films, circa 1921. Basically, when he and Viggo - brothers in this story - first met up, I thought they were going to make out, and not in the "Haha! They're totally gonna make out now." way.I seriously thought they were going to make out.
And this movie was SO LAME that I only kind of went "...oh, good Lord." at that thought, instead of "OMG WTF?!?"
The children in the family were terrible actors. The little one, I guess, can't be blamed for this. But the teenager! And his friend, with the UNEXPLAINED 1980s ponytail!!!!! And his teenaged nemesis, with the equally unexplained hard-on for kicking his ass!
The staircase sex made me feel awkward. Like. You know how I have the inappropriate feelings about violent men? The beginning of that scene was like 70% of the way there and then it just got weird (and it wasn't even the part where he was pseudo-choking her. HOW AWFUL IS THAT!) and then I kept thinking "WHERE ARE THEIR CHILDREN. ARE THEIR CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE?!?"
(Because I feel like coming home and seeing Daddy sort-of-but-not-quite raping Mommy on the staircase would be bad for your developing mind.)
I was very scoffy about the part where Tom/Joey went down to his brother's private lake after killing him and his henchpersons and flung the gun into the lake (YES, I'm SURE that when the feds come looking for a known member of an organized crime family and find him dead, they're totally not going to dredge the lake) and then he washed away the blood in the dirty pond water. He had an open wound. Somehow I imagine that you don't want dirty pond water in your gunshot wound. CALL ME CRAZY. And I know I was ignoring the Meaningful Overtones of that scene, what with his CROSS, and his SINS BEING WASHED AWAY blah blah blah, but DUCKS POO IN THAT WATER OKAY.
In sum. I thought this movie was going to be sort of great. And it was not. And I disapprove of that.
