Funny you mention the William Hurt part. I loved the movie EXCEPT for his part. It seemed like it was a semi-serious movie until the William Hurt parts; those seemed like they were trying to make a slapstick comedy. I wouldn’t be surprised if I heard that movie was an experiment with a two directors doing a piece of the move.
I liked it.
No particularly good reasons why.
I liked the humor, assuming the parts I chuckled at were supposed to be funny.
I liked Viggo’s performance, but I can’t decide if his character is dumb, brilliant, or schizophrenic.
But I didn’t see subtlety anywhere. The movie examines our ambivalent attitude toward violence. Isn’t that about it?
I thought it was one of the best movies of its year too. Viggo was robbed of an Oscar nomination, and it really could have been one of the 5 Best Picture nominees, no problem.
I liked it. I don’t know what was so subtle about it though.
It was enjoyable as a straight-up romp of sex and violence, if you ask me. I love that scene when Ed Harris shows up at the deli and keep calling him by his old name.
I also went in with lowered expectations. That always seems to help.
I had no idea this was such a polarizing movie.
I thought it was good. I can easily imagine someone not liking it. But it is hard for me to see why someone would think it was particularly obviously a bad movie.
Why are some of you saying the movie is a really bad movie? And what movies do you like?
-FrL-
I’d also like someone to explain what is so “subtle” about this film. I’d like to hear what I missed in a story that, as far as I could tell, was completely straightforward.
Yeah, I thought it was a fine film (“It was fine” as opposed to “Mighty fine!”), reasonably entertaining, tho perhaps a mite overviolent for my tastes. I tend to be pretty concrete, and wouldn’t be surprised if I missed some subtext. And Maria Bello was mighty hot!
In the thread about Pan’s Labyrinth I mentioned that my youngest daughter was a bit upset by the violence in that film. A while back the 2 of us rented AHOV at her request. In the store I asked her “You sure you want to see this? Its supposed to be extremely violent.” She decided she had to leave the room when Viggo was mashing the one thug’s nose into a pulp.
For folks who ave seen both AHOV and PL, how do you compare the “graphic-ness” of the violence portrayed in the 2 flicks?
Maria Bello gave a volcanic performance. It is a tough film to watch at times, but that’s only natural, since it’s a meditation on violence, especially in the U.S.
I was uncomfortable during the sex scenes. I guess I just wasn’t expecting that much skin to show!
That may have been one of the themes, but if you think about it, it was really about identity. Who are we? Are we defined by what we have done in the past? Is it possible to change who we are?
vivalostwages, I was very uncomfortable with the sex scenes too, because I was watching with my sister-in-law. I had warned her that I thought the movie would be violent (duh…) but we weren’t prepared for the sex. Meanwhile my wife is in the next room snickering at our discomfort…
I think Pan’s Labyrinth was more graphic, but that may be because it’s more fresh in my mind.
I was genuinely terrified of how much they were going to show us when the stuttering French rebel was being tortured. Thankfully, the director was merciful.
AHoV didn’t really make me feel the same way at any point.
What got me ticked off when I watched in the theatre was the clapping, whooping and cheering from some members of the audience every time somebody got punched out, beaten up or blown away. The movie was not celebrating violence, but they certainly were.