A history of violence.

Chaostracize · #1 10-12-2005, 01:10 AM

Rotten Tomatoes gave this 88%. I can't believe it.

When this movie wasn't painstakingly boring (some of the worst writing I've heard) it was some of the best unintentional humor I've seen in a while.

Anyone disagree with this?

Make you sure let people know in your post title if you're posting a spoiler, cause some of the spoilers were the funniest parts.

Was that a spoiler?

tdarko · #2 10-12-2005, 01:13 AM

search function?

Boris · #3 10-12-2005, 01:32 AM

no you hit the nail on the head. the movie sucked. My theory on the high marks from the "critics" is that Cronenberg struck a deal the elite of the gay nation. basically, after Dead Ringers, his movies have sucked really badly. But Cronenberg was desperate to make money and stay relevent in the Hollywood scene. Since he knows that there is a vanguard of the Gay Elite that pretty much controls our pop culture tastes, he was like hey, let's make a deal. And the Vanguard was like "OK. we never get to see any homoerotic scenes in regular movies. you put in some sexy stuff for us in each of your movies and we will guarantee box office success." So that's what Cronenberg did. After 1990, he made 3 movies that sucked but were critically acclaimed and did well at the box office. The movies were Crash, Naked Lunch and History of Violence. All three of the movies have sex scenes that are really hot, IF YOU ARE GAY!

So anyways, that's why the movie got such awesome reviews even though it obviously sucks.

Chaostracize · #4 10-12-2005, 01:57 AM

Crash. Another movie that I felt was so, so, so close to being really great and just failed miserably in the writing.

The concept of this movie was clutch, but then I feel like the writer is so keen on building suspense, that nothing happens, and if you argue that it does, by that point you don't even care anymore.

istewart · #5 10-12-2005, 01:41 AM

IMO, it did not suck.

But, once William Hurt entered the movie it did suck. WTF was that? That entire scene either flew 10 stories over my head or was horribly out of place.

TheBlueMonster · #6 10-12-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, it did not suck.

But, once William Hurt entered the movie it did suck. WTF was that? That entire scene either flew 10 stories over my head or was horribly out of place.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the weakness of the Hurt scene, but I thought it was rather funny

Boris · #7 10-12-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, it did not suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think you've been outed. congrats.

Chaostracize · #8 10-12-2005, 01:59 AM

I don't understand what's "gay" about this movie, though. Did you see the same 2 soft-core porn scenes that I did?

Boris · #9 10-12-2005, 02:14 AM

OK. Let me explain.

1. Maria Bellow - her face is sweet but once you see her naked you realize she is below average by Hollywood standards and only slightly above average for real life standards. Cronenberg is saying "see, chicks might look nice but really they're not all they're cracked up to be."

2. the second sex scene where Mortenson nails Bellow on the stairs. Not only are hard wooden stairs the absolutely most unsexy, uncomfortable, most unrealistic place to have sex, the only skin in this scene is Mortenson's pale white ass pumping up and down. Gag. But if you were gay you probably liked this scene. Here Cronenberg is saying "see hetero sex is really uncomfortable. Get a load of Viggo's ass." Sorry but this just didn't do it for me.

Chaostracize · #10 10-12-2005, 02:22 AM

I thought Maria Bello was beautiful, but I digress. I completely agree with your second interpretation now that I think about it. Well, not completely agree, but I definitely don't disagree.