scandalousalan said:

I watched a sensational film recently called "House of The Devil", not only is the female lead exquisitely beautiful, but the film itself is superb. Its a true story based on events that took place in America surrounding the occult.

If you are looking for shocking, check out "Audition", its a Japanese film.

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

Commentary Review.............

myfavorite said:

FUCK! i mean crack is good the first time you hit it you mongrel mufukas. and for your information....your goddamned soul aint in your brain faggot breath!!!!

(where the hell did the crack reference come from?? cussing and lewd references was in poor taste. )

and how in the west fuck did yall get to THAT level in dungeons and fukkin dragons!!! you shoulda sought a foundation in your younger years instead of that hollywood bullshyt...miserable jerks!!!

all i got is what the bible says for ya, and you have to accept what was already done for you....you need something for your SOUL instead of the lust of your eyes, (stealing) the lust of your flesh ( killing) and the pride of life ( destroying ) thats all the enemy does you are your own enemy idiots!!! ....Your FRIENDS will get you with that everytime until the standard of YOUR SOUL is lifted, NOT YOUR LOINS OR YOUR CONNECTED MIND! .....sons of evil bitches!!!!!!

(Very scary and somewhat incoherent, person should seek help and leave crack alone. *sidenote. outburst were a result in an attempt to smash said crack...)

and fuck you intervention needing assholes... (poor taste)

[Edited 10/18/10 15:25pm]

This person has entertained too many points or reference and should narrow her scope.....thank you.

If there were subjects that were lead into a situation similar to what the movie portrayed, that indeed is a travesty I have never sought to participate in.

Antichrist (which has an opening like a nightmare perfume commercial) was Lars Von Trier's attempt to make a horror movie. At least that's what he says. The ending with the "witches", the animals that talk or betray... all speak of supernatural horror.

what's remarkeble to me is that much of the stylized transitions, sound effects, shots of nature, and close ups of ears, etc...

were exactly like David Lynch!

Not the documentary style Lars made a name doing.

johnart said:

Cerebus said:

I read about it MONTHS ago at AICN when it was being screened at some film festivals. I downloaded a dvd screener version via a torrent shortly thereafter.

I've never done the torrents stuff. I've always been askurred.

I'll orgnote you some thoughts on torrents later.

I just remembered what Irreversible is. You've mentioned it a few times and it sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it. Then you mentioned a certain act and I remembered reading about that previously. I love Monica Bellucci, but I don't think I want to see that one.

Unfortunately, that's how I felt about Serbian Film after it was over. Judging by all the other things you've watched I'm sure you'll be able to compartmentalize what you're seeing as being a) fake, and b) art. I agree with you that in those contexts there is no need to ban such works. I'm more offended by the continued glorification of Nazi Germany than I am by any movie, because that was REAL.

I can definitely say that Antichrist and Serbian Film are the only two movies I've ever seen where I thought something might have been taken too far. Then I stop and realize that I'm working with my own set of boundaries and thresholds, that somebody else is likely to feel/think differently. But this movie, Serbian Film, IS meant to shock, and to be disturbing. It's not a romantic comedy. Is it art? Sure. I mean, of course. But is it enjoyable? Enlightening? Educational? No. None of the above. Not for me. I can't imagine anybody wanting to watch it a second time and I would certainly think differently of them if they expressed real enjoyment after doing so.

ufoclub said:

Antichrist (which has an opening like a nightmare perfume commercial) was Lars Von Trier's attempt to make a horror movie. At least that's what he says. The ending with the "witches", the animals that talk or betray... all speak of supernatural horror.

what's remarkeble to me is that much of the stylized transitions, sound effects, shots of nature, and close ups of ears, etc...

were exactly like David Lynch!

Not the documentary style Lars made a name doing.

really??? I still refuse to see it

so i watched serbian film, and just as i expected, the hype makes the movie pale into significance. it just suffers from the same problem than blair witch and human caterpillar have, in that once you read the hype you think you are going to see something truly awful, so from there you can only be dissapointed

that is unless you are one of the few people who aren't familiar with the world of film, and who aren't open minded, and who have a weak stomach. there are those people who will think blair witch was scarey, and think saw is sick. those people just shouldn't bother seeing this film, it's by no means a mainstream movie, it's certainly not a blockbuster, and it's far from ever going to be in anyones best movie of the week, let alone year, there's plenty other really great movies out there to watch instead, and if you want horror or violence there are far better movies to see instead

and if you want to see the movie "just cuz" or because everyone is talking about it, or you hear it's really horrible, or you are the only one of your friends who hasn't seen it and you're feeling a bit left out, don't bother, it's not worth it. spend your hour and 40 minutes seeing a better movie instead. those who have seen it know that it's not that bad, only if you are a teenager or have little movie experience would you think it was a really strong film. as a teenager the movie may have the same effect as seeing a 70s or 80s explotaitoin film or video nasty, but as you know now, if you watch those flicks now they are almost comically bad, but in your youth you simply haven't had the time to experience the broad width of cinema, so have few films to relate to

if you really want to see it, by all means go ahead. it's an hour and 40 minutes, it's reasonably well shot, it has a story, which is not a million miles away from the idea of 8mm, and the violence/horror at the worst points isn't really that much worse than say hostel 2. the difference is that this film is trying not to glorify the violence, but show how bad it is, and thus the few violent scenes only take up about 10 minutes of screen time out of 100 minutes, and the "sick" scenese that peopel refer to only take up about 60 seconds each, and aren't shot particularly graphically. you know what's happening, you know it's awful, but you don't see it full on like a saw or hostel movie. it's more the idea of what is happening, in that the theme is violence/snuff/peadophilia/etc that some people simply can't come to terms with watching in a movie, which is entirely understandable, so if you don't like the idea of watching a movie with those themes, then avoid this movie

there are other great movies/books with violent themes and scenes of brutal violence that are considered great movies/books, such as the millenium trilogy. the girl with the dragon tattoo has some brutal scenes of violence, but i haven't seen anyone suggest that others don't see it, on the contrary, people tend to tell people that they have to read the book or watch the movie. i do that myself, it's some of the best cinema i've seen in a long time. a serbian film isn't in that category by a long mile, but you can draw some comparisons in that in both movies the violence is only a small part of the screen time, yet the violence plays a strong part in the whole story

my main point is don't bother seeing the movie, for two reasons, one it's not that great, and two you might be turned off by the themes and violence. if you really want to see what the fuss is about, go ahead and watch it, you've been plenty warned about what you are going to see, and i've warned you that if you are expecting a violence gorefest or some ultrasick stuff on screen, you're going to be dissapointed

i've seen literally thousands of movies of all types, both good and bad, from amores perros to the hottie and the nottie, from citizen kane to vulgar, the greatest movies and the worst movies from around the globe, the best of world cinema and the worst of american college comedies. as with food, sometimes you want steak, sometimes chocolate, sometimes cheese, sometimes you want something familar, and sometimes you want something more adventurous, sometimes you just want a wee change from the norm. if you want something adventurous or a change from the norm, look at imdb or movie forums or ask for suggestions online and you'll find something better to fill a couple of hours. if you want the movie equivilent of biting a hot chilli to see if you can handle it, then by all means watch this, but remember that not long after biting the hot chilli, you soon forget about the hot taste. some people might not forget about this movie after seeing it, but if you're an experienced movie watcher then it'll have the same effect as hard candy, you remember it for a bit and then forget about it

there are far more brutal scenes in popular war movies that other people rate highly, casualties of war, apocalypse now, deer hunter, full metal jacket, etc, scenes of rape, violence towards innocent people, etc, but i don't recall anyone ever telling others not to see those movies because of the thematic content. you know what to expect when you watch those movies, and make your personal choice to watch them or not. it's pretty much the same with those movie. perhaps if you had nightmares from a particular scene in exorcist when you first saw it in the 70s, you might end up with a similar lasting memory from this movie, but most people watching exorcist in recent years, having seen far worse things on screen since, will have no qualms about it. to some you may have afterthoughts for a while, but i don't think anything worse than the wose effects that excorcist may have had at it's peak. the themes may be shocking for now, but many regular movie buffs have already seen things just as a bad, so won't be affected

i would still say that antichrist is more disturbing, mainly cuz it's more damn weird

unique said:

so i watched serbian film...

Man, I read the synopsis on Wikipedia and that was enough for me.

ufoclub said:

scandalousalan said:

I watched a sensational film recently called "House of The Devil", not only is the female lead exquisitely beautiful, but the film itself is superb. Its a true story based on events that took place in America surrounding the occult.

If you are looking for shocking, check out "Audition", its a Japanese film.

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

I'd be interested to hear what you didn't like about the film. I thought everything about it was great. I loved the way the director shot it all on dated camera equipment, and employed 70s/80s techniques to give it a kind of vintage feel. Something i never thought would fly, but it did for me. Low budget, suspenseful, although not particularly original in plot it worked for me. A great Halloween film if you are into something that is not a slasher. A friend of mine told me it was based on true events, fuck knows where he got his info but it must be bullshit.

scandalousalan said:

ufoclub said:

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

I'd be interested to hear what you didn't like about the film. I thought everything about it was great. I loved the way the director shot it all on dated camera equipment, and employed 70s/80s techniques to give it a kind of vintage feel. Something i never thought would fly, but it did for me. Low budget, suspenseful, although not particularly original in plot it worked for me. A great Halloween film if you are into something that is not a slasher. A friend of mine told me it was based on true events, fuck knows where he got his info but it must be bullshit.

Gonna watch it this weekend.

scandalousalan said:

ufoclub said:

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

I'd be interested to hear what you didn't like about the film. I thought everything about it was great. I loved the way the director shot it all on dated camera equipment, and employed 70s/80s techniques to give it a kind of vintage feel. Something i never thought would fly, but it did for me. Low budget, suspenseful, although not particularly original in plot it worked for me. A great Halloween film if you are into something that is not a slasher. A friend of mine told me it was based on true events, fuck knows where he got his info but it must be bullshit.

It's a very conscious throwback to older horror films. It's more in the same vein as 70's B-grade flick like Devil's Rain (which I like much better) or Phantasm (also much more imaginative and better, with an even lower budget). There were some classics of 70's stuff back then I"d watch as a kid like "Legend of Hell House".

If you pretend like it did come out in 1976, then it still plays like a c-grade movie you might see at 2pm pm on Saturday on a UHF channel, and I think that's exactly what they were going for. But that's not good! You have 70's movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, or more unheard things like Burnt Offerings... and those are way better... so to me it's like they made a mediocre 70's horror movie... and there are tons of those! Tons. No reason to make one more. What I think happened is that many people are unfamiliar with the all these horror films that came out in the 70's (these days would have gone straight to video) and also mistakenly identify this as an homage to early 80's horror.

I don't wanna trash it too much because I personally know one of the actors involved (most everyone involved is on an indie level aside from Greta Gerwig who graduated to A-list movies now). But it's not a great movie by 70's standards! Or 80's... or now. But that's just how I feel. I was so excited about watching it too! Invited my friend over who is also a horror nut (We both worship The Exorcist), and we were both underwhelmed.

It had one good scene that we both liked (the camera revealing the slain family), but everything else was kind of clumsy and unimaginative, and not very intense. The ending was cliche! The characters were flat

Maybe I'm not looking at it through rose colored glasses, but I am definetely a child of 70's horror and early 80's horror. This was a bad 70's horror movie. There are plenty of actual good ones!

Oh my gawd, I'm rambling to stall from storyboarding for a friend's project... I better get back to it. Let me know what you liked about it. I like hearing what people like in movies (and dislike). And I know that different movies can hit different people in different ways. I love big super detailed movies like The Exorcist or The Shining... but I also LOVE "Paranormal Activity", and could defend it in great detail as to why it works for me and the entire audience I saw it with. I know some peeps online hate it.

One of the most horrible and disturbing films I ever saw was a horror film called "Trouble Every Day" with Vincent Gallo.

Horrifying ending. and a horrifying scene in the middle.

gross.

ufoclub said:

scandalousalan said:

I'd be interested to hear what you didn't like about the film. I thought everything about it was great. I loved the way the director shot it all on dated camera equipment, and employed 70s/80s techniques to give it a kind of vintage feel. Something i never thought would fly, but it did for me. Low budget, suspenseful, although not particularly original in plot it worked for me. A great Halloween film if you are into something that is not a slasher. A friend of mine told me it was based on true events, fuck knows where he got his info but it must be bullshit.

It's a very conscious throwback to older horror films. It's more in the same vein as 70's B-grade flick like Devil's Rain (which I like much better) or Phantasm (also much more imaginative and better, with an even lower budget). There were some classics of 70's stuff back then I"d watch as a kid like "Legend of Hell House".

If you pretend like it did come out in 1976, then it still plays like a c-grade movie you might see at 2pm pm on Saturday on a UHF channel, and I think that's exactly what they were going for. But that's not good! You have 70's movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, or more unheard things like Burnt Offerings... and those are way better... so to me it's like they made a mediocre 70's horror movie... and there are tons of those! Tons. No reason to make one more. What I think happened is that many people are unfamiliar with the all these horror films that came out in the 70's (these days would have gone straight to video) and also mistakenly identify this as an homage to early 80's horror.

I don't wanna trash it too much because I personally know one of the actors involved (most everyone involved is on an indie level aside from Greta Gerwig who graduated to A-list movies now). But it's not a great movie by 70's standards! Or 80's... or now. But that's just how I feel. I was so excited about watching it too! Invited my friend over who is also a horror nut (We both worship The Exorcist), and we were both underwhelmed.

It had one good scene that we both liked (the camera revealing the slain family), but everything else was kind of clumsy and unimaginative, and not very intense. The ending was cliche! The characters were flat

Maybe I'm not looking at it through rose colored glasses, but I am definetely a child of 70's horror and early 80's horror. This was a bad 70's horror movie. There are plenty of actual good ones!

Oh my gawd, I'm rambling to stall from storyboarding for a friend's project... I better get back to it. Let me know what you liked about it. I like hearing what people like in movies (and dislike). And I know that different movies can hit different people in different ways. I love big super detailed movies like The Exorcist or The Shining... but I also LOVE "Paranormal Activity", and could defend it in great detail as to why it works for me and the entire audience I saw it with. I know some peeps online hate it.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I am on my way out to work, so will try to give a more detailed answer later. Like yourself "The Exorcist" is a great favourite of mine, a masterpiece. William Friedkin really put the cast through the mill to get the performances out of them. To this day that film has been the hardest hitting in terms of really frightening me on a psychological level. The silent scene where Father Karras is haunted by demonic flashbacks of his mother is pretty powerful. There are so many other parts of that movie that i could talk about all day. I loved also the way Friedkin incorporated a great deal of detail into attaining the right sound-effects. For instance, the jarring buzzing noise when the relic is discovered is a mic held up to bees etc. "The making of" documentary is very interesting. I also liked that the actors had to endure a degree of pain and suffering like being encased in a real freezing room in order to create the atmosphere that worked so well.

Paranomal activity was pretty good, i enjoyed it and found the climax pretty gripping.

House of the Devil as you say could easily fall into the sea of low budget 70's 80's horor films of the time. I think what i enjoyed most about it was the refreshing departure from the slick productions that are churned out nowadays. I watched it without reading about it first and had no expectations unlike yourself. Perhaps you built it up in your mind too much. I don't put it in the same quality bracket as "The Exorcist" but in terms of an enjoyable Halloween movie i rate it highly. Also I have always been a sucker for strong beautiful female leads in horrors such as Nightmare on Elm St and Dario Argento's "Suspiria. For me Jocelin Donahue fits the bill as the slightly shy, girl next door thrust into a world of horror. Unlike you i found the camera angles and general scene compositions quite beautiful. And it was a ballsy decision to shoot much of the film in utter silence, which cranked up the tension i thought.....

I watched Basket Case a few days ago

That movie is tight

RodeoSchro said:

unique said:

so i watched serbian film...

Man, I read the synopsis on Wikipedia and that was enough for me.

that's exactly what i mean about the hype. it's just typical daily fail reader stuff. a whole bunch of people get up in arms and start complaining about something they haven't seen and don't know the full facts, and that in turn stops other people doing something, or persuades others to join the angry mob in protest about something they don't really know about. they wouldn't want to know about the topic as if they found the real truth they would find they were wasting their time over a storm in a teacup

but by all means avoid the movie. i'm not persuading anyone to watch it, not that the movie is that horrible to watch, more that the hype is bigger than the movie is good, and there's absolutely no need to see it just to say you have. you can add it to the list of overhyped movies that aren't as scary/horrible as they are made out to be

the thing is, how many people would watch any movie that's been made in serbia? how many people have seen any serbian made movie before? very few. this is a low budget movie made in a country where few people outside of the country could even name a film made there, nevermind have seen one, yet with the power of hype, this little low budget movie has been seen by thousands if not millions more people due to online reviews, wiki articles and general hype. if that hype didn't exist, then few people would see the movie, and even less would care about wanting to or having seen it

what's amusing is people discussing the sickest horror movies to watch on halloween, movies with all sorts of blood and gore and violence and sick visuals, with people making suggestions of other movies to watch that are even more sick, yet some of the fans of these ultragory movies are suggesting or telling others to avoid a movie they haven't seen, on the strength of some articles online, and the truth is that movie is far less gory or violent than perhaps most of the other movies discussed, and certainly less gory and violent than many of the recent mainstream 18 rated horror flicks like hostel 2 and saw. you have mainstream movies where peoples heads are regularly cut off, stomachs sliced open, even nuns getting raped by a crucifix. you have real and explicit sex in the likes of brown bunny, shortbus, antichrist and 9 songs, but a movie with no real sex or explicit scenes to the degree of some of the other movies is considered far worse due to he theme, even though most people are drawing conclusion without having seen even a few seconds of the movie. and of those putting the movie down for the sexual theme, i wonder how many have seen a porn movie, or even watch them on some kind of regular basis. even a softcore porn film can be more explicit than serbian film.

so hopefully i've shattered the taboo of serbian movie. it just doesn't live up to the hype, it's nowhere in the slightest as gory, violent and horrific as it's made out to be. you certainly won't be puking up or having nightmares if you see it. and for the record, i'm not much of a horror film fan, certainly not of the films of the last 3 decades, those that use gore, blood and violence to shock, instead of having a gripping story, so i'm not desensitivised from seeing too many awful films or videogames. i still cry at movies if they are good and moving. i poured tears for the full length of marley and me cuz the movie was so fucking awfully bad. now that's my ultimate halloween horror flick, truely fucking horrific

unique said:

RodeoSchro said:

Man, I read the synopsis on Wikipedia and that was enough for me.

that's exactly what i mean about the hype. it's just typical daily fail reader stuff. a whole bunch of people get up in arms and start complaining about something they haven't seen and don't know the full facts, and that in turn stops other people doing something, or persuades others to join the angry mob in protest about something they don't really know about. they wouldn't want to know about the topic as if they found the real truth they would find they were wasting their time over a storm in a teacup

but by all means avoid the movie. i'm not persuading anyone to watch it, not that the movie is that horrible to watch, more that the hype is bigger than the movie is good, and there's absolutely no need to see it just to say you have. you can add it to the list of overhyped movies that aren't as scary/horrible as they are made out to be

the thing is, how many people would watch any movie that's been made in serbia? how many people have seen any serbian made movie before? very few. this is a low budget movie made in a country where few people outside of the country could even name a film made there, nevermind have seen one, yet with the power of hype, this little low budget movie has been seen by thousands if not millions more people due to online reviews, wiki articles and general hype. if that hype didn't exist, then few people would see the movie, and even less would care about wanting to or having seen it

what's amusing is people discussing the sickest horror movies to watch on halloween, movies with all sorts of blood and gore and violence and sick visuals, with people making suggestions of other movies to watch that are even more sick, yet some of the fans of these ultragory movies are suggesting or telling others to avoid a movie they haven't seen, on the strength of some articles online, and the truth is that movie is far less gory or violent than perhaps most of the other movies discussed, and certainly less gory and violent than many of the recent mainstream 18 rated horror flicks like hostel 2 and saw. you have mainstream movies where peoples heads are regularly cut off, stomachs sliced open, even nuns getting raped by a crucifix. you have real and explicit sex in the likes of brown bunny, shortbus, antichrist and 9 songs, but a movie with no real sex or explicit scenes to the degree of some of the other movies is considered far worse due to he theme, even though most people are drawing conclusion without having seen even a few seconds of the movie. and of those putting the movie down for the sexual theme, i wonder how many have seen a porn movie, or even watch them on some kind of regular basis. even a softcore porn film can be more explicit than serbian film.

so hopefully i've shattered the taboo of serbian movie. it just doesn't live up to the hype, it's nowhere in the slightest as gory, violent and horrific as it's made out to be. you certainly won't be puking up or having nightmares if you see it. and for the record, i'm not much of a horror film fan, certainly not of the films of the last 3 decades, those that use gore, blood and violence to shock, instead of having a gripping story, so i'm not desensitivised from seeing too many awful films or videogames. i still cry at movies if they are good and moving. i poured tears for the full length of marley and me cuz the movie was so fucking awfully bad. now that's my ultimate halloween horror flick, truely fucking horrific

I think you are mistaking sexual content and violent content in regards to being disturbing. Shortbus contains no violent content! Serbian film on the other hand does depict violence (as does Antichrist) doesn't it? It's mostly violent content that is mostly found disturbing around the world (outside of the weird ratings of the U.S.) I know that the two incidents in Irriversible were profoundly disturbing to me, as was the two incidents in Trouble Every Day. And there was a really painful moment in Antichrist.

ufoclub said:

unique said:

that's exactly what i mean about the hype. it's just typical daily fail reader stuff. a whole bunch of people get up in arms and start complaining about something they haven't seen and don't know the full facts, and that in turn stops other people doing something, or persuades others to join the angry mob in protest about something they don't really know about. they wouldn't want to know about the topic as if they found the real truth they would find they were wasting their time over a storm in a teacup

but by all means avoid the movie. i'm not persuading anyone to watch it, not that the movie is that horrible to watch, more that the hype is bigger than the movie is good, and there's absolutely no need to see it just to say you have. you can add it to the list of overhyped movies that aren't as scary/horrible as they are made out to be

the thing is, how many people would watch any movie that's been made in serbia? how many people have seen any serbian made movie before? very few. this is a low budget movie made in a country where few people outside of the country could even name a film made there, nevermind have seen one, yet with the power of hype, this little low budget movie has been seen by thousands if not millions more people due to online reviews, wiki articles and general hype. if that hype didn't exist, then few people would see the movie, and even less would care about wanting to or having seen it

what's amusing is people discussing the sickest horror movies to watch on halloween, movies with all sorts of blood and gore and violence and sick visuals, with people making suggestions of other movies to watch that are even more sick, yet some of the fans of these ultragory movies are suggesting or telling others to avoid a movie they haven't seen, on the strength of some articles online, and the truth is that movie is far less gory or violent than perhaps most of the other movies discussed, and certainly less gory and violent than many of the recent mainstream 18 rated horror flicks like hostel 2 and saw. you have mainstream movies where peoples heads are regularly cut off, stomachs sliced open, even nuns getting raped by a crucifix. you have real and explicit sex in the likes of brown bunny, shortbus, antichrist and 9 songs, but a movie with no real sex or explicit scenes to the degree of some of the other movies is considered far worse due to he theme, even though most people are drawing conclusion without having seen even a few seconds of the movie. and of those putting the movie down for the sexual theme, i wonder how many have seen a porn movie, or even watch them on some kind of regular basis. even a softcore porn film can be more explicit than serbian film.

so hopefully i've shattered the taboo of serbian movie. it just doesn't live up to the hype, it's nowhere in the slightest as gory, violent and horrific as it's made out to be. you certainly won't be puking up or having nightmares if you see it. and for the record, i'm not much of a horror film fan, certainly not of the films of the last 3 decades, those that use gore, blood and violence to shock, instead of having a gripping story, so i'm not desensitivised from seeing too many awful films or videogames. i still cry at movies if they are good and moving. i poured tears for the full length of marley and me cuz the movie was so fucking awfully bad. now that's my ultimate halloween horror flick, truely fucking horrific

I think you are mistaking sexual content and violent content in regards to being disturbing. Shortbus contains no violent content! Serbian film on the other hand does depict violence (as does Antichrist) doesn't it? It's mostly violent content that is mostly found disturbing around the world (outside of the weird ratings of the U.S.) I know that the two incidents in Irriversible were profoundly disturbing to me, as was the two incidents in Trouble Every Day. And there was a really painful moment in Antichrist.

i'm not mistaking anything. i'm aware that some people may be shocked by violence, others by sexual content, and others by both. serbian movie contents sexual violence, but the violence isn't as shocking as most other movies, and the sexual content isn't as explicit either. it seems if you mix the two things together, that's a taboo that some people are shocked by. the movie isn't the most violent nor most sexually explicit by far. i haven't seen irreversible in a long time, but i didn't think it was shocking. perhaps because i'm aware i'm watching a movie and i watch it in context, i know it's a story and actors and people aren't being hurt. i'm being told a story, and the movie portrays the events in the story. these movies aren't telling the viewer that these things are good, in fact it's usually the opposite. shortbus can be more shocking to people due to the sexual content. i was far more shocked by that as i didn't expect to see something that i've never seen before and tried to avoid seeing (being a straight male). there's nothing on screen that you actually clearly see in a serbian film that hasn't been seen on screen in countless movies before (bar perhaps the eye scene which only lasts a few seconds and isn't really that bad as it doesn't look real)

unique said:

ufoclub said:

I think you are mistaking sexual content and violent content in regards to being disturbing. Shortbus contains no violent content! Serbian film on the other hand does depict violence (as does Antichrist) doesn't it? It's mostly violent content that is mostly found disturbing around the world (outside of the weird ratings of the U.S.) I know that the two incidents in Irriversible were profoundly disturbing to me, as was the two incidents in Trouble Every Day. And there was a really painful moment in Antichrist.

i'm not mistaking anything. i'm aware that some people may be shocked by violence, others by sexual content, and others by both. serbian movie contents sexual violence, but the violence isn't as shocking as most other movies, and the sexual content isn't as explicit either. it seems if you mix the two things together, that's a taboo that some people are shocked by. the movie isn't the most violent nor most sexually explicit by far. i haven't seen irreversible in a long time, but i didn't think it was shocking. perhaps because i'm aware i'm watching a movie and i watch it in context, i know it's a story and actors and people aren't being hurt. i'm being told a story, and the movie portrays the events in the story. these movies aren't telling the viewer that these things are good, in fact it's usually the opposite. shortbus can be more shocking to people due to the sexual content. i was far more shocked by that as i didn't expect to see something that i've never seen before and tried to avoid seeing (being a straight male). there's nothing on screen that you actually clearly see in a serbian film that hasn't been seen on screen in countless movies before (bar perhaps the eye scene which only lasts a few seconds and isn't really that bad as it doesn't look real)

I can't believe you found Short Bus to be shocking! I disagree, in that sexual content is just not shocking at all to people these days. Especially the growing generations. I know so many kids that won't even bat an eye at something like 2 girls and 1 cup, because it has subversively become a mainstream thing. But violence is still a stopping point for many if it's presented in the right way with the correct humane amount of imaginative empathy. I really think it's strange that you found Short Bus to be shocking and not something like Irriversible. Why would two people you don't know playing sex games even matter? I think you are not processing the violent movies in an openly empathic way, because it should be amount to the same reaction as what would truly hurt you to witness in real life with people you know. I think that you don't believe in the concept of what they are portraying in the violent scenes (it doesn't matter if it's offscreen, it only matters if the feeling is imparted!)

ufoclub said:

unique said:

i'm not mistaking anything. i'm aware that some people may be shocked by violence, others by sexual content, and others by both. serbian movie contents sexual violence, but the violence isn't as shocking as most other movies, and the sexual content isn't as explicit either. it seems if you mix the two things together, that's a taboo that some people are shocked by. the movie isn't the most violent nor most sexually explicit by far. i haven't seen irreversible in a long time, but i didn't think it was shocking. perhaps because i'm aware i'm watching a movie and i watch it in context, i know it's a story and actors and people aren't being hurt. i'm being told a story, and the movie portrays the events in the story. these movies aren't telling the viewer that these things are good, in fact it's usually the opposite. shortbus can be more shocking to people due to the sexual content. i was far more shocked by that as i didn't expect to see something that i've never seen before and tried to avoid seeing (being a straight male). there's nothing on screen that you actually clearly see in a serbian film that hasn't been seen on screen in countless movies before (bar perhaps the eye scene which only lasts a few seconds and isn't really that bad as it doesn't look real)

I can't believe you found Short Bus to be shocking! I disagree, in that sexual content is just not shocking at all to people these days. Especially the growing generations. I know so many kids that won't even bat an eye at something like 2 girls and 1 cup, because it has subversively become a mainstream thing. But violence is still a stopping point for many if it's presented in the right way with the correct humane amount of imaginative empathy. I really think it's strange that you found Short Bus to be shocking and not something like Irriversible. Why would two people you don't know playing sex games even matter? I think you are not processing the violent movies in an openly empathic way, because it should be amount to the same reaction as what would truly hurt you to witness in real life with people you know. I think that you don't believe in the concept of what they are portraying in the violent scenes (it doesn't matter if it's offscreen, it only matters if the feeling is imparted!)

it's a simple answer. if you watch enough movies you see enough violence and sexual content. if you watch porn you see explicit sexual content. the difference with shortbus is you get graphic explicit gay sex scenes which hetrosexual males are more than likely not to have seen before. it's seeing something for the first time that makes it shocking. you don't get explicit gay sex scenes in mainstream cinema often, but you do get violence and hetrosexual sex scenes frequently

empathy plays no part in it. in a good movie you feel empathy towards characters, in crap movies like low budget ones, you don't feel empathy as you don't associate with the characters in the same way, usually down to writing, direction and acting. you don't get the same reaction with a bad movie compared to a good one

unique said:

ufoclub said:

I can't believe you found Short Bus to be shocking! I disagree, in that sexual content is just not shocking at all to people these days. Especially the growing generations. I know so many kids that won't even bat an eye at something like 2 girls and 1 cup, because it has subversively become a mainstream thing. But violence is still a stopping point for many if it's presented in the right way with the correct humane amount of imaginative empathy. I really think it's strange that you found Short Bus to be shocking and not something like Irriversible. Why would two people you don't know playing sex games even matter? I think you are not processing the violent movies in an openly empathic way, because it should be amount to the same reaction as what would truly hurt you to witness in real life with people you know. I think that you don't believe in the concept of what they are portraying in the violent scenes (it doesn't matter if it's offscreen, it only matters if the feeling is imparted!)

it's a simple answer. if you watch enough movies you see enough violence and sexual content. if you watch porn you see explicit sexual content. the difference with shortbus is you get graphic explicit gay sex scenes which hetrosexual males are more than likely not to have seen before. it's seeing something for the first time that makes it shocking. you don't get explicit gay sex scenes in mainstream cinema often, but you do get violence and hetrosexual sex scenes frequently

empathy plays no part in it. in a good movie you feel empathy towards characters, in crap movies like low budget ones, you don't feel empathy as you don't associate with the characters in the same way, usually down to writing, direction and acting. you don't get the same reaction with a bad movie compared to a good one

I wouldn't say it's a simple answer because you are exhibiting a complex problem... equating sex with violence, and even putting sex higher on the list of a threat. And saying that the violence in Irriversible (which was so finely, minutely rendered in an effective way that people were walking out of the theater) is less shocking then some sex in Shortbus is like saying that you wouldn't really be disturbed if someone in your family was raped and murdered in front of you, but if you witnessed someone in your family having gay sex, you'd be disturbed for life. That's a real complex problem!

ufoclub said:

unique said:

it's a simple answer. if you watch enough movies you see enough violence and sexual content. if you watch porn you see explicit sexual content. the difference with shortbus is you get graphic explicit gay sex scenes which hetrosexual males are more than likely not to have seen before. it's seeing something for the first time that makes it shocking. you don't get explicit gay sex scenes in mainstream cinema often, but you do get violence and hetrosexual sex scenes frequently

empathy plays no part in it. in a good movie you feel empathy towards characters, in crap movies like low budget ones, you don't feel empathy as you don't associate with the characters in the same way, usually down to writing, direction and acting. you don't get the same reaction with a bad movie compared to a good one

I wouldn't say it's a simple answer because you are exhibiting a complex problem... equating sex with violence, and even putting sex higher on the list of a threat. And saying that the violence in Irriversible (which was so finely, minutely rendered in an effective way that people were walking out of the theater) is less shocking then some sex in Shortbus is like saying that you wouldn't really be disturbed if someone in your family was raped and murdered in front of you, but if you witnessed someone in your family having gay sex, you'd be disturbed for life. That's a real complex problem!

no, i'm not saying that at all. in fact, mostly the opposite. and just because a movie shocked me doesn't mean it was a powerful or long lasting shock. some people get a shock when they open a door and someone is behind it, well that shock doesn't last long and isn't powerful. i think it's more of an american or prudish thing to think that sex is more shocking than violence. i've never thought that myself, but obviously other people do, considering the outrage over ASM

unique said:

ufoclub said:

I wouldn't say it's a simple answer because you are exhibiting a complex problem... equating sex with violence, and even putting sex higher on the list of a threat. And saying that the violence in Irriversible (which was so finely, minutely rendered in an effective way that people were walking out of the theater) is less shocking then some sex in Shortbus is like saying that you wouldn't really be disturbed if someone in your family was raped and murdered in front of you, but if you witnessed someone in your family having gay sex, you'd be disturbed for life. That's a real complex problem!

no, i'm not saying that at all. in fact, mostly the opposite. and just because a movie shocked me doesn't mean it was a powerful or long lasting shock. some people get a shock when they open a door and someone is behind it, well that shock doesn't last long and isn't powerful. i think it's more of an american or prudish thing to think that sex is more shocking than violence. i've never thought that myself, but obviously other people do, considering the outrage over ASM

The US is really weird about what they consider "restricted". They are more in line with some strict Muslim countries in that regard of prudishness towards sex.

I remember visiting England as kid in 1983 and it being such an eye opener to see that Poltergeist and The Thing were rated X... and that a shampoo commercial on tv showed breasts.

But I think they have it right. Sex in itself is not harmful, but violence in itself is harmful. Copying violence in movies or tv can lead to murders, even massacres.

With regards to Amercian prudishness. I'm almost ashamed to see the effects of such prudishness on myself being born and raised in the US... but I think the internet has definitely changed cultural views on sex... maybe too much the other way. I joked that to high schoolers these days blowjobs are like currency. Nothing more than a favor! Actually it goes down to middle school now. It was not like that when I was in school.

I really want to see that old film The Legend of Hell House. Saw doesn't frighten me, Friday the Thirteenth and Hostel don't frighten me, I laughed through the entirety of The Blair Witch Project.. but ghost stories always get me.

Keyumdi said:

I really want to see that old film The Legend of Hell House. Saw doesn't frighten me, Friday the Thirteenth and Hostel don't frighten me, I laughed through the entirety of The Blair Witch Project.. but ghost stories always get me.

I think Blair Witch was essentially a ghost story!

ufoclub said:

scandalousalan said:

I watched a sensational film recently called "House of The Devil", not only is the female lead exquisitely beautiful, but the film itself is superb. Its a true story based on events that took place in America surrounding the occult.

If you are looking for shocking, check out "Audition", its a Japanese film.

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

We watched this today. I really didn't have a lot of love for it either.

We started out excited about it, finding the whole retro thing to be working but after a while there just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing going on.

The best thing about that film was the blond chick that played her best friend.

[Edited 10/24/10 21:35pm]

johnart said:

ufoclub said:

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

We watched this today. I really didn't have a lot of love for it either.

We started out excited about it, finding the whole retro thing to be working but after a while there just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing going on.

The best thing about that film was the blond chick that played her best friend.

[Edited 10/24/10 21:35pm]

That chick used to be so indie, that I was introduced to her at a film festival back in 2005... now she's starring opposite Russell Brand in the remake of Arthur and has had a featured bio article in the New York Times last summer! She's moving on up!

johnart said:

ufoclub said:

I didn't really like "House of the Devil", but a few parts were cool. But it's not a true story, lol!

We watched this today. I really didn't have a lot of love for it either.

We started out excited about it, finding the whole retro thing to be working but after a while there just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing going on.

The best thing about that film was the blond chick that played her best friend.

[Edited 10/24/10 21:35pm]

Yea fair play. I guess i am one of the few people who actually did enjoy it on every level. It got panned on IMDB and other reviews i have since read. I loved it

minneapolisFunq said:

I watched Basket Case a few days ago

That movie is tight shite

PunkMistress said:

BlackAdder7 said:

this was far worse...Reanimator. Any movie that has a disembodied head going down ona a girl who's laying on an autopsy table takes the cake...

Well, if that takes the cake, then the one pp4 posted (a father being forced to rape his son while his brother rapes his wife, a man raping a newborn baby) eats the cake and shits it out on your face.

OMG Like yeah I did read the wikipedia synopsis and as sick as the movie sounds, I hate when people are like "I caution you to watch this" because then it makes me want to see it...but this one, damn I actually don't really know if I have the balls to watch this disturbing shit or not. And how in the hell do you rape a newborn? That's the sickest, most demonic thing ever!!!

ufoclub said:

johnart said:

We watched this today. I really didn't have a lot of love for it either.

We started out excited about it, finding the whole retro thing to be working but after a while there just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing going on.

The best thing about that film was the blond chick that played her best friend.

[Edited 10/24/10 21:35pm]

That chick used to be so indie, that I was introduced to her at a film festival back in 2005... now she's starring opposite Russell Brand in the remake of Arthur and has had a featured bio article in the New York Times last summer! She's moving on up!

Oh wow, really?? I immeditately said "she better be turning up in other stuff". No lie.