District 9
There's a new Peter Jackson movie out. Let me recount the discussions I had with my wife about it:
Well, I'm not really expecting that it's going to be full of socio-political commentary or anything. There will probably be a lot of blood explosions.
--LATER THAT DAY, ON 680NEWS---
This movie is surprisingly full of socio-political commentary, making it more entertaining that I expected
-----------------
So, guess what I just heard on 680NEWS? Yeah, let's go see it.
-----------------
Turns out the movie is in fact full of blood explosions. Literally. Socio-political commentary? Not so much.
The villains are not terribly sinister as far as villains go, but neither are they nuanced---the mark of a good villain. The main character has had a LOT more work put into him, and it shows.
But unfortunately it gets drowned out by the INSANE AMOUNT OF BLOOD EXPLOSIONS. People LITERALLY EXPLODE like they were microwaved after being hit by some alien beam weapon. It's relentless. It's actually revolting. I felt nauseous after the movie, and so did Meagan.
I can watch a good bit of violence. In fact, dystopian movies especially involving the end of the world are my FAVOURITE. But there's a line between well-placed, appropriate, plot-advancing etc violence, even intense violence, and what's over the line: repulsive, flagrant, wanton, grotesque violence that serves no purpose for the film.
Saving Private Ryan. The violence was part of the ambiance. It was important to include that level of violence BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. That's part of the commentary that the movie makes. Children of Man, again, the violence is part of the scenario. It's the world gone to hell as everyone panics. But there is a wide and noticeable difference between how those two movies are set up and how D9 is. D9 can't excuse the violence with plot or what hve you. It's just a sick and violent movie. It's like biting into this amazing looking steak and finding out that it's 90% fat and gristle. It's just not enjoyable, and it's more than a bit of a let down.
Well, I'm not really expecting that it's going to be full of socio-political commentary or anything. There will probably be a lot of blood explosions.
--LATER THAT DAY, ON 680NEWS---
This movie is surprisingly full of socio-political commentary, making it more entertaining that I expected
-----------------
So, guess what I just heard on 680NEWS? Yeah, let's go see it.
-----------------
Turns out the movie is in fact full of blood explosions. Literally. Socio-political commentary? Not so much.
The villains are not terribly sinister as far as villains go, but neither are they nuanced---the mark of a good villain. The main character has had a LOT more work put into him, and it shows.
But unfortunately it gets drowned out by the INSANE AMOUNT OF BLOOD EXPLOSIONS. People LITERALLY EXPLODE like they were microwaved after being hit by some alien beam weapon. It's relentless. It's actually revolting. I felt nauseous after the movie, and so did Meagan.
I can watch a good bit of violence. In fact, dystopian movies especially involving the end of the world are my FAVOURITE. But there's a line between well-placed, appropriate, plot-advancing etc violence, even intense violence, and what's over the line: repulsive, flagrant, wanton, grotesque violence that serves no purpose for the film.
Saving Private Ryan. The violence was part of the ambiance. It was important to include that level of violence BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. That's part of the commentary that the movie makes. Children of Man, again, the violence is part of the scenario. It's the world gone to hell as everyone panics. But there is a wide and noticeable difference between how those two movies are set up and how D9 is. D9 can't excuse the violence with plot or what hve you. It's just a sick and violent movie. It's like biting into this amazing looking steak and finding out that it's 90% fat and gristle. It's just not enjoyable, and it's more than a bit of a let down.