Movies you'll probably never see because they're too depressing

[Loopydude]

“Last Exit to Brooklyn” I wanted to take a shower after this film. Relentlessly depressing. I’d rather get kicked in the nuts than watch it again.

“Happiness” A heartwarming tale of a boy who wants to ejaculate (unfortunately, he does)…meanwhile, his pedophile psychiatrist dad is sodomizing his effeminate best buddy at a sleepover, after slipping all the kids a mickey. Yes, so uplifting I wanted to puke.

A movie that should depress the bejeezus out of me, but I want to see over and over again is “Mulholland Drive”. This is not often the case for me and David Lynch movies. I’m pretty sure it’s not because of the hot lesbian sex scenes which are…did I mention they’re pretty hot? But the persistant, oppressive weirdness, and that whacked-out monster thing, and theending. Why do I want to subject myself to this head-trip from Hell over and over?

[Rubystreak]

I have never seen Amores Perros even though I’ve heard it’s good, because it supposedly depicts graphic dog fights and animal abuse. My reasons for not seeing The Passion are similar; I hate to watch needless suffering. I’m not so much squeamish about Hollywood-esque gore; I like Clint Eastwood movies and mafia films. It’s the realism of these movies that would upset me.

Movies I wish I hadn’t seen because, though they were quite well executed, were so depressing: The Pledge, In the Bedroom, Dancer in the Dark, and Cold Mountain.

[Gail]

My list:

The Passion of the Christ

House of Sand and Fog (I read the book, though)

Braveheart

Quills

Dead Man Walking

Thirteen The plot summaries I got and the scenes I’ve seen make it seem like one of those episodes of Maury Povich, where parents bring the out of control kids on.
I, too, don’t like to watch suffering.

[Fear_Itself]

Testament, (1983), in which a woman in a small community east of san Francisco struggles to survive after a nuclear attack. Utterly bleak and depressing; the message is, if there ever is a nuclear war, abandon all hope, because your family will die a slow, miserable death, no matter what you do.

[burundi]

Originally posted by lissener

Many of the titles mentioned in the above posts are depressing because they’re true. I don’t think it’s very smart to go through life with unrealistic expectations of the goodness of the world. I think an understanding of human history–the good and the bad alike–is necessary to someone who wants to see and think clearly.

As a historian, I absolutely agree with your last point. However, I don’t think movies are the best way to gain this understanding. And I doubt any poster in this thread has an unduly Pollyanna-esque view of human nature.

More to the point, most people watch movies to be entertained. It’s Friday night; I’ve made a date with my husband; and I’m looking forward to having a good time. Frankly, I don’t want to watch something that will leave me depressed for the rest of the night. That doesn’t make me a shallow person.

[lieu]

I guess one to add to those I wish I hadn’t seen was Leaving Las Vegas. I’ve thankfully not been privy to too much violence against women and I found the scenes of such very disturbing. With Gage’s self destruction added to the mix, I found myself tempted to turn it off even well into the movie. It’s not like one doesn’t know these things exist and how horrible they must be. It left me down, depressed, certainly not entertained, and probably not much more knowlegable about how to help those who find themselves caught in such a mess. To me it was a downer without much benefit.

[Spoke]

@gooti

I’ll never see Shindler’s List * because I watched * Shoah in high school and those images have stayed with me until now. As a black person, I find it very difficult to watch anything that features violence spawned by racism. Movies like that just rip my heart to pieces and makes me dwell on how evil people can be to each other for no reason for days on end.

My husband has tried to get me to watch * American History X* on several occasions and I simply refuse to watch it because I know I will be depressed for a long time after seeing it. I’m sure it’s a good movie, or else he wouldn’t want me to watch it so badly, but I know my limits and I just can’t do it.

The same goes for movies like Amistad and Glory.

*Shindler’s List , * American History X, Amistad and Glory…See, I don’t have a problem with any of these, because even though they have some grim elements, they are saved by also having some element of redemption: In *Shindler’s List , at least some Jews are saved, and one German sees the evil being done and tries to do what he can to mitigate it. In * American History X, the main character finds redemption and sees the error of his ways. Amistad makes a life-affirming point about human dignity. Ditto for Glory. Films like this don’t disagree with me.

On the other hand Breaking the Waves, Requiem for a Dream, Dancer in the Dark, The Pledge, Kids…These movies seem to have an almost pornographic fascination with human suffering and degradation. Nothing redeeming or life-affirming in any of them that I can see (though I will readily agree that they all contain some fine acting).

[Evil_Captor]

Who needs a movie to get depressed? Whatever happened to checking the balance on your bank account or adding up the chores around the house that need doing, etc? The simple things …

[Marley23]

Thirteen is a good choice. I think I’d find The Passion infuriating, not depressing, but I still won’t see it.

Movies I’ll never watch again: Requiem for a Dream (as well-made as it was)… Saving Private Ryan (which I actually found depressing for different reasons) and Schindler’s List are good picks. Also Kids. That’s one movie I wish I hadn’t watched the first time. Completely pointless and nothing but an attempt to shock and depress you.

I personally think it behoove every member of human society to force themselves to watch WWI concentration camp documentaries.

I’m a bit like Vezer, actually- I’ve seen too much of this stuff. I’ve been numb to it for years, and it pisses me off. One reason I think The Pianist was an incredible movie (WAAAY better than Chicago, though that was good) is that it made me feel something at a few moments. I understand where you’re coming from, lissener, but I think there are probably too many people out there who think like you do on this issue.

[mlerose]

Kids - saw it once, never need to see it again
Requiem for a Dream - same as above

Boys Don’t Cry
American History X

Don’t know if I’ll ever watch those two.

[wonky]

My father died in December. Since then, I’ve had two friends and one acquaintance die.

Anyone who thinks I need a movie to prove that I have feelings needs, desperately, to get a life.

Sorry for the crankiness, but dammit, I live in a violent, depressing world. I don’t need my entertainment to make me any sadder.

Julie

[sooperpooper]

I mentioned elsewhere in This Great Forum that I’m bipolar. Through sheer willpower and determination, I’ve stifled my emotion to the point where I actually wonder if I was better off nuts. I wanna feel something again, but without becoming manic, as it’s just too destructive. So I tend to thrive on depression and pain. I will probably write a list of the movies on here to see sometime (except Bumfights, because I can still be disgusted).

I once saw a movie, can’t remember the title, about a drug dealer who moves from NYC to CA to get away and start a new life. He ends up getting sucked back down and killing himself. Very depressing. I desperately want this movie, but can’t remember what it’s title is, or who was in it. If anybody has seen this, please help me.

[Kalhoun]

@OtakuLoki

Hmm…

for me there are a number of movies that I won’t watch, often because I have no interest in seeing a movie made from events I’m already familiar with, or because I don’t feel a need to injest more filth to meet some kind of sadness quotient. Hearing that suggestion leaves me feeling mad, honestly. However, if a film is well done I may watch it, even knowing it’s a downer. The same is true of books, too.

Who said anything about a “sadness quotient?” And since when is a realistic interpretation considered “filth?”

Having said that, I’ve yet to see Schindler’s List. I’m not ruling it out, I just havn’t seen it, yet. For me it’s the movies where the main character isn’t sympathetic. American Beauty being one of the top at that category: I tried watching it, really, and by the end of half an hour saw no reason to keep viewing.

You might want to continue to take a pass on Schindler’s List. As great and moving as this film is, Schindler may not be sympathetic enough for you. He was rather apathetic toward the Jews for a long time before he saw the light.

For the most part, I choose to select my movie viewing based on what will be entertaining, not which film is going to affirm my ability to feel pain.

I have as many reasons for picking movies as I do emotions. Hmmmm…watching films ONLY for entertainment’s sake? It never occurred to me…

I don’t plan to see Enemy at the Gates, but that’s a philosophical objection more than anything else: to reduce the battle at Staingrad to simply a sniper’s duel strikes me as the worst sort of cheap sensationalism. A more horrifyingly accurate microcosm of the battle would have been the fighting over the one really good hill in the city for artillery spotting, Mamalev Kurgan.
At one point, when Zhukov lost control of that hill, he sent a newly arrived division of Cossack cavalry to retake it, plus whatever else he could scrape up. That division of 10,000 men ceased to exist after that battle. That would have been a more complete picture of the battle, showing the costs, and scale, of that struggle. Or better still to focus on some of the men and women working at the Tractor Works factory, throughout the battle.

Maybe the director wasn’t out to “horrify” anyone or film a "complete picture"of the battle. Maybe he was just zeroing in on the effect the battle had on those particular guys. I think “cheap sensationalism” would be a better label for a movie that has a cast of 10,000.

If I’m looking for a glimpse of something like the Halocaust, I think that a good book on the subject, or a return to The National Halocaust Museum is better than any movie. Instead of being led by someone else’s view of it, at their pace, with no time for reflection, I can take my own time to look and think.

Well, yes if you’re looking for a historical record of an event. But if you’re looking to learn about another person’s perspective on that event (mind you, not being “led”…we’re talking “learning”) then a movie is going to give you that.

[wonky]

@Kalhoun

Well, yes if you’re looking for a historical record of an event. But if you’re looking to learn about another person’s perspective on that event (mind you, not being “led”…we’re talking “learning”) then a movie is going to give you that.

Or a book, a memoir, talking to a survivor… I consider movies one of the worst ways of getting another person’s perspective on any event.

Julie

[OtakuLoki]

@Kalhoun

Who said anything about a “sadness quotient?” And since when is a realistic interpretation considered “filth?”

Filth is what I think of when I think of American Beauty. I’d no more watch any more of that movie than what I did, than I would eat vomit. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought that Schindler’s List was filth, and I’ll apologize if I gave that impression.

@Kalhoun

You might want to continue to take a pass on Schindler’s List. As great and moving as this film is, Schindler may not be sympathetic enough for you. He was rather apathetic toward the Jews for a long time before he saw the light.

On the other hand, he did change his mind, and while remaining something of a cold fish, he still worked to do what he thought was necessary. Seems pretty sympathetic, to my mind.

@Kalhoun

Maybe the director wasn’t out to “horrify” anyone or film a "complete picture"of the battle. Maybe he was just zeroing in on the effect the battle had on those particular guys. I think “cheap sensationalism” would be a better label for a movie that has a cast of 10,000.

I did mention that my objection to Enemy at the Gates was idiosyncratic, right? And one can’t make any movie with a cast of 10,000 - it’s too confusing. I’d meant to suggest, rather, a different focus for a movie about Stalingrad. And I think any honest movie about Stalingrad should be horrifying.

@Kalhoun

Well, yes if you’re looking for a historical record of an event. But if you’re looking to learn about another person’s perspective on that event (mind you, not being “led”…we’re talking “learning”) then a movie is going to give you that.

You mean, like JFK or Nixon?

Seriously, a movie is going to reflect the director’s vision more than anything else. That’s not a bad thing, mind you, but it does leave me believing that the best way still to get another person’s perspective is to read their own words. There are numerous autobiographies available on most any subject, which I prefer to any movie.

As an example, consider Shadowlands, a movie based on C.S. Lewis’ grief dealing with the death of his wife. It is based on the events that Lewis chronicles in his notebooks, since published as A Grief Observed. Both the movie and the book are moving, and powerful experiences. However, because the movie ends with the character of C.S. Lewis still doubting, still angry at a God that could allow this to happen, I don’t believe it’s a very good representation of C.S. Lewis’ views. In his journals, Lewis did come to terms with his loss, and maintained his faith. So, while Shadowlands is an excellent film, it’s not what I’d call a good representation of C.S. Lewis’ perspective.

[Marley23]

Filth is what I think of when I think of American Beauty. I’d no more watch any more of that movie than what I did, than I would eat vomit.

Because it’s sad? I guess people can like or dislike movies for any reason they choose to make up, but this makes no sense to me whatsoever. I’m also not sure where you can muster up the conviction to say a movie is filth and its title character unsympathetic when you only watched half an hour of it.

[lieu]

I’d no more watch any more of that movie than what I did, than I would eat vomit.

Then you’d better stay away from The Great Santini.

In addition to being sad, not only do they eat vomit, they even use silverware.

[OtakuLoki]

@Marley23

Because it’s sad? I guess people can like or dislike movies for any reason they choose to make up, but this makes no sense to me whatsoever. I’m also not sure where you can muster up the conviction to say a movie is filth and its title character unsympathetic when you only watched half an hour of it.

No, I didn’t like it because I actively disliked the main character. He reminded me of Mersault from Camus’ The Stranger, only not as likable. Even knowing the main character was dying, I still didn’t care about him, and his reasons for his actions seemed vile, to put it mildly. I didn’t care about it being sad.

And I give a book at most 5 chapters to hook me, why shouldn’t I use a similar standard for movies? At half an hour I’ve seen 25-33% of the movie, and if I didn’t care for the character then, why would I care later?

And, just to point out, when I say a character has to be sympathetic, it’s more a case of I have to be able to relate to him or her. I didn’t much care for DFENS from Falling Down, but I thought it was a very good movie, and his character I had a good deal of empathy for.

[Patr100]

“Johnny, you see, wound up in a trench in France as a shell exploded nearby. Johnny survived, but with a certain amount of collateral damage. He lost both legs, both arms, his face, his eyes, his ears, and his voice.”

http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog19/trumbo.htm

“Johnny Got his Gun”. Saw it on TV many years ago.

[DMark]

The Hours - gee, what could be more fun that sitting in a movie theater with a tub of popcorn, a large cola and watch a long film about suicidal Lesbians.
I’ll pass.

Same with almost every film on Lifetime Channel - you know the kind: “Mother Can I Sleep With A Psycho, Pedophile, Drug Addict, Wife-Beating, Serial Killer Before I Am Diagnosed With Cancer And Have A Fatal Heart Attack And Die; The Mary Johnson Story”
Usually, the titles alone are enough to send me into a funk.

I also tend to pass on films that hit too close to home - having lost a bunch of friend to AIDS back in the 80’s, I really don’t need to see any film about people gathering at death beds. Been there. Really hated that. Don’t need to see it on the screen.