[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: @@@@@@@@ nope, no OTR content in this post either.
Since a few people are responding to this post both on and off the list,
I thought I would cut and paste a private post between me and Mike
McVey--something I feel like I can do since the post is mine
anyway--Mike sorry but you'll get this response twice now...
So here it is:
> I would be intrigued with a demonstration of why and how it sucks.
>
Well, take this for what it's worth, because I saw the thing when it
first came to video, and I'm not going to spout a bunch of intellectual
stuff either, but here goes.
1. Thornton is NOT believable in his role. As I said, acting retarded
is not the same thing as *acting*.
2. Gratuitous sexual references. This is so reminiscent of Stephen
King. I'd lay my bottom dollar it, but I bet that Thornton is well read
in his SK. This is not to say that sex is not a relevant part of life
and that the portrayal of it can't add to a movie, but this just smells
of either A) Thornton is a pervert (highly likely from some of the stuff
I've heard about him) or B) It was put there to boost ticket
sales--after all, sex does sell. (aside---I have much respect for
actors like Harrison Ford who refuse to do a sex/bedroom scene because,
among other reasons, they don't want their reputation resting on the
world's libidos')
3. The whole "Frankenstien" reference has been so used already--this is
not original--ie, a child accepts the monster openly...see Mary Shelly
ca. 18th c.
3a. The flashbacks to childhood too are very passé. The whole movie
is one big cliché.
4. And the big climax where he kills the abusive boyfriend. I'm
sorry, but it's not up to one man to decide if another man lives or
dies. The "final blow" (sorry no pun intended) that *did in* this movie
(for me) was this last scene. Thornton is making a statement that one
man's misguided life can be righted by one fell swoop of a sickle. This
is dangerous ground morally speaking. He's playing on the emotions of
the viewing public to say "it's okay to take the law into your own hands
if someone is really mean to helpless people." I'm sorry, that's called
ANARCHY. And the woman *could* have left him. This is one real issue
that the movie effectively dealt with-- codependency.
5. The falling action where Thornton's character (is his name Karl?) is
back in the asylum and tells the other guy to shut up is pathetic.
We're supposed to see Karl now as a changed man? One who can discern
right from wrong? One who can call a spade a spade--one who has had
enough and can now stand up and face his oppressors? I guess if you
subscribe to Thornton's philosophy, maybe so, but to me the whole scene
is self serving--more gratuitous bunk that tries to hamper critical
thought. It's one of those things where the film should have ended with
the "sling of the blade"--then I would have had a LOT more respect for
what he was trying to do.
Well, I guess I did get a little bit intellectual, but I just hated this
movie. It unnerves me that the general public thinks that this is a
great movie while they condemn a film like like Leaving Las Vegas---but
that's another post entirely...
Thanks for asking,
Mark
References: