Spoiler Alert: this is a contrarian's view point, and hence will probably not be to anyone's liking. But then, isn't the Bulwark a rather contrarian publication? [That's a rhetorical question.] And will anyone actually read this comment on a days-old article? Moreover, I feel compelled to represent!
Knowing that I was going to see the film on Friday night, I delayed reading Sonny's review until Saturday, and I'm glad I did!
I enjoyed the Mummy movie, except perhaps for the ending, in which [Spoiler Alert!] everyone more-or-less lives happily ever after. Not that there's anything *wrong* with living happily ever after, it's just that the ending normalized a film that otherwise seemed rather fresh - to me, anyway. [And hey, of course I have not seen all the films, so it could indeed be quite derivative of some that I have not seen!]
In particular, I enjoyed the special effects and being manipulated (*) by a sound track that definitely increased the "horror".
So here's my push back: let's face it: we all know that all these things that "happen" in the movie to our protagonist - in this case, a poor little girl - do not really happen in real life, umm-k? In fact, I'd guess that in real life the actress playing our Victim/Heroine - or at least her parents - probably made a nice chuck of change off the effort!
So I say, let's save the sympathy for real children that suffer real horrors, like Liam Conejo Ramos, the 5-yo whom ICE used to arrest his dad!
And now here's my question, for Sonny and all who agree with him: last night (Saturday 4/18) I watched Mean Girls for the first time. People still talk about it 20+ years later, so I figured it was time to learn what those who have seen it were assuming that "everyone" knows. It was ok; I gave it 7 stars on imdb.
Hey, I'm 71 yo now but I still remember the "horror" of High School and "Opinion Books" - what my fellow students in Huguenot High's class of '72 called books like the "Burn Book" in the movie. Yes, we had more than one of these and they circulated - they did not stay tucked away in one person's bedroom! Oh the horror, the horror!!
Do people who disdain mistreatment of child characters in movies look back at Mean Girls with similar distaste? [I'm genuinely curious, and open to nuance, but do not guarantee that I'll agree with you.]
Fwiw, asking for a comparison to Mean Girls is the real reason I wrote this looooooong comment.
(*) In the commentary track to an episode of Deadwood I learned that David Milch refused to use the soundtrack to "manipulate" emotions. I can dig that! But it made me more conscious of how soundtracks do this, and I dig that too!! To each their own, right? Fwiw David M. did not care for camera movements, either. Perhaps we can all agree that the things one learns by listening to commentary tracks - and reading reviews - can make life a lot more interesting, amirite?!?
I missed the part in MEAN GIRLS where they made a virtual snuff film with one of the actresses!
To your broader point: it is, of course, a movie, and thus “not real.” But part of criticism is reacting honestly to a film. I never agreed with Roger Ebert on slashers but I understood where he was coming from and where his lines were. The line, for me, is torturing/disfiguring children. You are, naturally, free to have a different line!
It's been a few days now, and I've struggled to come up with more than a few movies that I do not want to see.
Whether this sort of extreme open-mindedness a pathology or a super-power is a question I leave up to anyone who might read this. But I maintain that, as hinted in a "Christmas Story" I posted late last year, I really do enjoy the work of both Andrei Tarkovsky and Michael Bay, so that's something!
Years ago I watched one of the Human Centipede movies - I don't remember which one - on the big screen in an indie house, and will state that I have absolutely no desire to watch the other two. I've added a fourth movie to the list, hoping that anyone who sees this will get a chuckle upon learning there's allegedly one that's far worse than those three:
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) - 2009, 1:32 - imdb rating 4.4
The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) - 2011, 1:31 - imdb rating 3.8
The Human Centipede III (Final Sequence) - 2015, 1:42 - imdb rating 2.7
No, because none of the violence in that film is inflicted directly on them. If it had been a movie with eg kids stabbing themselves in the face with forks, then it would be closer. Children in peril can be tolerable; children in torture porn less so.
Yeah, I am with you Sonny - I have been tired of this crap for a looooong time now, and it is one of the reasons I don't really like the horror genre - it is way to ham handed (people smnoking weed and doing sex get killed) and glories in scenes of torture.
The world is bad enough already - try to make it better with your films, people!
Like, an innocent family that gets targeted, tortured and killed, and all the time you think they are the victims - but it turns out, mom and dad worked for the helath insurance PAC, sn Biff was an intern and a nazi, and the sole survivor, the daughter Susan, enjoyed smoking weed and having sex.
All the horror, but at end, you feel good about your guilty pleasures instead of sickened.
i'm not sure i've watched a marketed as purely horror movie top to bottom -- even the "classics" such the exorcist (although yes on the shining but is that strictly speaking horror? also [perusing a top 10 list of them] alien and non-speaking lambs none of these 3 are to me 'horror'). I'm more interested in escapist fun overall. as the real world and history has real horror in spades and i know too much about that...
but as for this movie -- i think what youre saying is this movie nibbles/bites off child abuse as entertainment. and it seems like indeed it does based on your descriptions of it ...
and does the thing that makes movies actually care? they should but probbaly don't ... or it's a slippery slope, we should be able to turn from.
Spoiler Alert: this is a contrarian's view point, and hence will probably not be to anyone's liking. But then, isn't the Bulwark a rather contrarian publication? [That's a rhetorical question.] And will anyone actually read this comment on a days-old article? Moreover, I feel compelled to represent!
Knowing that I was going to see the film on Friday night, I delayed reading Sonny's review until Saturday, and I'm glad I did!
I enjoyed the Mummy movie, except perhaps for the ending, in which [Spoiler Alert!] everyone more-or-less lives happily ever after. Not that there's anything *wrong* with living happily ever after, it's just that the ending normalized a film that otherwise seemed rather fresh - to me, anyway. [And hey, of course I have not seen all the films, so it could indeed be quite derivative of some that I have not seen!]
In particular, I enjoyed the special effects and being manipulated (*) by a sound track that definitely increased the "horror".
So here's my push back: let's face it: we all know that all these things that "happen" in the movie to our protagonist - in this case, a poor little girl - do not really happen in real life, umm-k? In fact, I'd guess that in real life the actress playing our Victim/Heroine - or at least her parents - probably made a nice chuck of change off the effort!
So I say, let's save the sympathy for real children that suffer real horrors, like Liam Conejo Ramos, the 5-yo whom ICE used to arrest his dad!
And now here's my question, for Sonny and all who agree with him: last night (Saturday 4/18) I watched Mean Girls for the first time. People still talk about it 20+ years later, so I figured it was time to learn what those who have seen it were assuming that "everyone" knows. It was ok; I gave it 7 stars on imdb.
Hey, I'm 71 yo now but I still remember the "horror" of High School and "Opinion Books" - what my fellow students in Huguenot High's class of '72 called books like the "Burn Book" in the movie. Yes, we had more than one of these and they circulated - they did not stay tucked away in one person's bedroom! Oh the horror, the horror!!
Do people who disdain mistreatment of child characters in movies look back at Mean Girls with similar distaste? [I'm genuinely curious, and open to nuance, but do not guarantee that I'll agree with you.]
Fwiw, asking for a comparison to Mean Girls is the real reason I wrote this looooooong comment.
(*) In the commentary track to an episode of Deadwood I learned that David Milch refused to use the soundtrack to "manipulate" emotions. I can dig that! But it made me more conscious of how soundtracks do this, and I dig that too!! To each their own, right? Fwiw David M. did not care for camera movements, either. Perhaps we can all agree that the things one learns by listening to commentary tracks - and reading reviews - can make life a lot more interesting, amirite?!?
I missed the part in MEAN GIRLS where they made a virtual snuff film with one of the actresses!
To your broader point: it is, of course, a movie, and thus “not real.” But part of criticism is reacting honestly to a film. I never agreed with Roger Ebert on slashers but I understood where he was coming from and where his lines were. The line, for me, is torturing/disfiguring children. You are, naturally, free to have a different line!
It's been a few days now, and I've struggled to come up with more than a few movies that I do not want to see.
Whether this sort of extreme open-mindedness a pathology or a super-power is a question I leave up to anyone who might read this. But I maintain that, as hinted in a "Christmas Story" I posted late last year, I really do enjoy the work of both Andrei Tarkovsky and Michael Bay, so that's something!
Years ago I watched one of the Human Centipede movies - I don't remember which one - on the big screen in an indie house, and will state that I have absolutely no desire to watch the other two. I've added a fourth movie to the list, hoping that anyone who sees this will get a chuckle upon learning there's allegedly one that's far worse than those three:
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) - 2009, 1:32 - imdb rating 4.4
The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) - 2011, 1:31 - imdb rating 3.8
The Human Centipede III (Final Sequence) - 2015, 1:42 - imdb rating 2.7
Melania - 2026, 1:44 - imdb rating 1.6
Is "Weapons" in this category?
No, because none of the violence in that film is inflicted directly on them. If it had been a movie with eg kids stabbing themselves in the face with forks, then it would be closer. Children in peril can be tolerable; children in torture porn less so.
I agree. Thx for the response.
Yeah, I am with you Sonny - I have been tired of this crap for a looooong time now, and it is one of the reasons I don't really like the horror genre - it is way to ham handed (people smnoking weed and doing sex get killed) and glories in scenes of torture.
The world is bad enough already - try to make it better with your films, people!
Like, an innocent family that gets targeted, tortured and killed, and all the time you think they are the victims - but it turns out, mom and dad worked for the helath insurance PAC, sn Biff was an intern and a nazi, and the sole survivor, the daughter Susan, enjoyed smoking weed and having sex.
All the horror, but at end, you feel good about your guilty pleasures instead of sickened.
Thanks for the warning.
i'm not sure i've watched a marketed as purely horror movie top to bottom -- even the "classics" such the exorcist (although yes on the shining but is that strictly speaking horror? also [perusing a top 10 list of them] alien and non-speaking lambs none of these 3 are to me 'horror'). I'm more interested in escapist fun overall. as the real world and history has real horror in spades and i know too much about that...
but as for this movie -- i think what youre saying is this movie nibbles/bites off child abuse as entertainment. and it seems like indeed it does based on your descriptions of it ...
and does the thing that makes movies actually care? they should but probbaly don't ... or it's a slippery slope, we should be able to turn from.