One thing that’s changed is that both me and my husband have lost interest in shows about narcissists and sociopaths or people doing really bad things. That often crosses into crime dramas but it also affects more mundane examples, like the TV show House. We don’t want to watch shows starring morally bankrupt characters anymore.
I don’t care for gore, either, but I can tolerate it much better than torture.
If you ever watched Barry, I found that to be much worse than anything in Dexter, despite it being a comedy (albeit tragic).
This pretty well sums it up for me. If I feel like the events cross over from “plausible in real life” to “implausible,” it becomes easier to view the movie as simply an exercise in imagination. I didn’t enjoy watching Human Centipede as a story about people being tortured, but I’m willing to say it was “interesting” as a creative endeavor. To be clear, though, I didn’t find it interesting enough to watch it a second time. I get the premise, I see how the filmmaker executed it, and I’m good with that.
Personally, i think wrapping a person in Sarah wrap and telling them you are about to kill them is a form of torture. But i don’t recall seeing any physical torture, no. His method was to drug his victim, restrain them, tell them why he was going to kill them, and then killing them off screen, with the understanding that the actual killing part was quick.
It’s funny, the first film is actually pretty tame, gore wise. It’s more just the concept being so disturbing and gross. The director then made the sequel as a direct response to all the critics who claimed the first one was so gory. The second film, in the unedited version, is nasty for sure.
I watched a few episodes and I thought it was hilarious. I guess comedy helps.
Later on there’s a fair amount of gruesome torture, mostly done comically but way too realistic. I really felt the torment the torturee underwent! .
Thanks for the response. Are you surprised that you seem to be the only respondent who likes the sorts of movies I asked about?
I was raised on oldtime horror movies - Dracula, Werewolf, etc. And Night Gallery on TV. The first movies I ws really creeped out by were The Hills Have Eyes and Chainsaw Massacre. But I was always a bit of a wimp. Never really liked jumpscares like in Wait Until Dark.
But I just feel there is enough unpleasantness that takes up space in my brain that I do not wish to go out of my way to bring in more. Yeah - I know there are really creepy, unbalanced, nasty folk out there and that atrocities are being committed. I don’t need to reinforce that through my entertainment.
Any idea why this is? I’m not a fan of animal cruelty, but given the choice, I’d prefer an animal get injured/killed than an innocent person.
Why should Eyebrows be surprised, based on your reaction when someone says they do enjoy it? BTW, another person in the thread said they did as well.
You seem kind of judgmental, considering that millions of people seem to like them.
I don’t like golf, but I hear some people do.
Yeah, torture and mutilation etc belong in slasher films, where those sort fans can watch them.
I mean, finding a body that looks pretty gross is okay, just not seeing it done. And no torturing or killing innocent animals, except of course hunting with a clean kill.
No, I know I am not and that there are others here who like the same films. I often read their reviews in the Movies You’ve Seen Recently thread. They just have not posted.
I would always 100% of the time rather see a human injured onscreen in a fictional film than a dog. No question whatsoever. This is a pretty common view tbh.
You know why I don’t like psycho villains? (quest-ce que c’est?)
They’re just too easy to write, and make any kind of plotting (or trying to figure out the villain’s motives) superfluous.
Who’s the bad guy? Is it A, B, or C; people close to the victim?
Doesn’t matter! The villain’s insane, so they could’ve picked the victim at random.
Okay, but surely the method of torture must point to the villain’s identity…
No! The only reason for being flayed with a rapier over a split-nib garden trowel is… there IS no reason. He’s just a sadist!
Are there clues that help us reader/viewers figure all this out?
Doesn’t matter! A crazed killer might leave clues out of carelessness or craziness.
But there must be a way to reason out…
No! There’s not! Arrrrggh!
I have a Marine friend who can calmly demonstrate the quickest and quietest way to kill someone (we’re writers - it comes up!) but he can’t deal with animal or child harm in movies. It’s relatively common.
It’s just a bit bemusing to me what I can handle in films that he can’t. I was going to recommend him Shutter Island which is a fantastic psychological thriller, but nooope.
I’m reading a book right now from the 70s (Hammett by Joe Goers) and when it first introduces one particular villain she’s literally drowning kittens. All this work we put into creating complex, believable antagonists and it turns out you just have to show them doing something horrible to make readers hate them. Ah, well.
I think Silence of the Lambs worked in part because Hannibal does have a motive beyond general evil, we just don’t know what it is. He’s a bit inscrutable which makes him more interesting.
My asking follow up questions is judgmental? While expressly thanking him and making clear than I have no intention of criticizing? Or expressing my personal views and experiences, with the idea that it contributes to a meaningful discussion of varying opinions?
And why bring golf into the discussion?
Maybe he considers golf to be sadistic.
I think it’s merely masochistic. Think about it, in almost every other sport, the ball comes back to you, and you get another chance.
Basketball? Miss and it bounces back, or another player brings it back to your end of the court.
Golf? Shank it, lose track of the ball, hit it behind those trees … you’re screwed.
Based on the bestselling thrillers I’ve read, part of the appeal seems to be the creative ways the killers come up with to kill people. In the first Reacher book, the method was probably one of the worst things I’ve ever heard, but it was so far-fetched I was unbothered.
I have a friend who co-wrote a fairly successful serial killer thriller featuring a Biblical retribution theme, so I read it, and it strained credulity but I’m beginning to realize that may be endemic to the genre.
Some people read/watch romance purely for the titillation, some people read/watch thrillers for I imagine similar reasons. It doesn’t have to be that deep, it just has to deliver on the bizarre killer/crazed methodology and feature a hero with a dark secret.
For a while, I actually got really into a dark romance book series called the Mindf*ck series in which a female serial killer falls in love with the agent hired to find her. It’s bonkers. It is flat-out serial killer torture thriller and the sappiest love story ever, from her point of view - and you believe the romance. I didn’t finish it because the torture scenes were pretty bad on top of a lot of profoundly traumatic flashbacks, I just didn’t think the dark narrative could hold up the love story anymore. Was a fascinating read though. Turned many, many romance tropes on their heads.
Sorry, I found your remark “Are you surprised that you seem to be the only respondent who likes the sorts of movies I asked about?” to be dripping with judgment.
No, not at all. I love good drama and that often has violence I can handle, but I remember everything I watch and I don’t want to carry even fictional nasty trauma.
The last show to go the limit was Utopia (Prime, 2020, 1se.). Made it to episode 3 until the school scene. It was the sound that drove it home that I can still hear even now. I do not need that for entertainment.
Moderating;
This is getting into personal attack territory.
This is all off-topic, and some is hostile.
Please drop the thread shit. Common types of fiction, and who likes them, is a perfectly valid cafe society discussion.
I was not at all offended btw.