Movies that are too frustrating to watch

I just loved seeing Naomi Watts gagged

You obviously don't understand it. It's LITERALLY supposed to be overly cliche and a statement of how retarded horror movies are. Look it up.

>>84764803
I think it was supposed to be really fucking annoying. The main villains weren't scary they were just fucking annoying, the 4th wall shit was fucking annoying, that fucker not being able to hold some fucking eggs was annoying, the remote scene was annoying, the way Naomi Watts dies is annoying. I don't remember for sure but I think Haneke said he was trying to make a statement on violence in media so he made a really violent film but we don't get to actually watch and enjoy the violence, which is why it all happens off-screen.

>>84764803
>im too dumb for "art cinema"
Ftfy

>>84764803
But that was the point you dense fuck, you were supposed to be utterly frustrated by it. Funny Games is Haneke's fuck you to the standard moviegoer who enjoys violence as long as it is "morally justified" by the hero of the story, so Haneke flips the genre completely.

At the first screening at Cannes the entire audience applauded and cheered when that guy finally got shotgunned to the wall, only to go dead silent in utter disbelief when the rewind happened. That's exactly the reaction Haneke wanted to produce, I bet he formed the most smug face in existence at that very moment

>Shit movie

YOU WATCHED IT WRONG!! REEEEEEEEEE!!!

>>84764959
>>84766454
This.

>>84764959
>>84766454
>it's bad on purpose

That's not a good thing

File: mfw21.png (454KB, 1153x487px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1153x487px

>>84766664
That's the only thing you took away from those posts? Lol.

>>84766664
What's bad about it? Tell me specifically why do you think it's a bad movie?
Because you were frustrated?

>>84766454
>Funny Games is Haneke's fuck you to the standard moviegoer

This is so stupid and bullshit, I hate anyone that defends this garbage movie

NO STANDARD MOVIE GOER IS AT FAULT FOR ENJOYING A WELL MADE MOVIE THAT CONTAINS VIOLENCE

NO STANDARD MOVIE GOER WILL WATCH THIS ART HOUSE FILM ANYWAY

THIS FILM IS LITERALLY ONLY A FUCK YOU TO THE POOR SOULS THAT WERE FORCED TO SIT THROUGH IT

>haha don't you see, you shouldn't feel good experiencing violence on the screen because violence is wrong, so let me break the rules of cinema intentionally and make something that's both violent and unenjoyable, thanks for your money and 2 hours btw

>>84766723
>What's bad about it?

It's called good faith. If I gave you a riddle, and dared you to figure it out, you spent time thinking over and over, eventually giving up, and then I tell you the answer to the riddle is the name of a character that you never heard of, that in fact no one had ever heard because I'd made it up, then you'd be rightfully pissed off because the unspoken terms of the riddle were that you could figure it out yourself.

Basically: as a critique of violence it's fucking garbage because there's more effective AND more entertaining ways than to engage in a film and have the characters rewind and basically says fuck you for cheering when the family commits violence, because violence is always bad because other people cheer in other movies

>>84766786
Look at how plebs get mad when something doesn't conform to their limited experience and expectations. Hilarious.

>>84766786
nice reddit spacing
nice triggerred caps lock

Where did he "break the rules of cinema"? The fourth wall break? That's nothing special whatsoever.
Still not a single argument of why is it a bad movie.

>>84766835
>there's more effective AND more entertaining ways than
Like?

File: HANEK'D.jpg (26KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 620x465px

>>84766786
This entire post is exactly the reaction Haneke wanted to produce. If he read this he would smirk so fucking smugly at you with full satisfaction.
You are the textbook example of the moviegoer Haneke wanted to affect.

File: 1489567441.jpg (43KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1366x768px

>>84766786

>>84766945
Well yes. What's wrong with wanting that?

>>84767038
Because real life doesn't always end happy. Because films don't have to be standardised products with the same exact structure. Because films should not be exclusively made as feelgood "entertainment".

>>84766848
Because it's unenjoyable, people just talk about it to feel a smug (and false) sense of superiority because people don't like this shit film, a shit film you no one actually enjoys watching or thinking about (hence why it only ever comes up in discussion about how buttblasted people get when watching it, never anyone talking about the actual film, because it has the depth of a puddle, see this pathetic retard for an example >>84766842) also nice reddit spacing yourself
>>84766875
Any film that's both good (subjective) and a critique of violence or consumption, that actually criticises it instead of film school tier concepts that break the reality of the movie and make it feel cheap and -unenjoyable-, and not in a way that actually effectively critisises consumption of violence, just because you show violence and make it unpleasant isn't effective criticism of anything, you haven't revealed anything about the audience at all except that they don't like shit movies.

I would actually like someone to explain how it does critique the consumption of violent films, I'm open to hearing an actual theory, but as usual the only explanation of the themes are the movie... was made on purpose

>>84764959
>"It's LITERALLY supposed to be overly cliche"
>"a statement of how retarded horror movies are"
>>84765048
>"I think it was supposed to be really fucking annoying"
>>84766454
>"you were supposed to be utterly frustrated by it"

Saying he made the film on purpose, and that he wanted people to dislike it on purpose (btw me disliking it must mean I watched it the right way and my assessment that it is a piece of shit is an accurate one), doesn't actually dissect the movie in any way.
>>84767038
This
>>84766945
>b-but you wanted a good film, that was well made
I guess he knows it's a piece of shit, if anything the film is probably a critique against retards that pretend to understand arthouse cinema and will defend anything, even garbage movies intended to be garbage

>>84767109
>you haven't revealed anything about the audience at all except that they don't like shit movies.
Yes. It is revealed that people think violence is okay when they believe someone deserves it. That people will gladly watch somebody get murdered if it has been shown that they deserve it.

>>84767139
That was already revealed, in every Hollywood blockbuster ever made.

Wouldn't it be great if this movie came down on one side of the fence of that easily-observed fact. Oh, like maybe, let's say, "It's bad that people think violence is okay when they believe someone deserves it" or maybe "people will gladly watch somebody get murdered if it has been shown that they deserve it - this is not okay"

Which is something the film does not show, or even argue at all, in any way.

>>84767109
prime example of triggered autism

>>84767109
So your only argument of why it's a "shit film" is because you found it unenjoyable?

File: Edge.gif (499KB, 200x126px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 200x126px

>>84767187
>Wouldn't it be great if this movie came down on one side of the fence of that easily-observed fact. Oh, like maybe, let's say, "It's bad that people think violence is okay when they believe someone deserves it" or maybe "people will gladly watch somebody get murdered if it has been shown that they deserve it - this is not okay"

>>84767231
It's shit because you can't effectively and convincingly argue that it's good. My favourite film is Synecdoche, New York, so don't think it's impossible for me to love overly-long depressing boring ass films

If the only reason something is good is because it's provocative, it isn't good. Otherwise you end up with shitty "art" like Levitated Mass and Duchamp's Fountain.

>>84767317
That calls into question why things are good or bad in the first place. Is a film only good when it makes us feel good? 'Cause that's what you're driving at.

>>84767282
>It's shit because you can't effectively and convincingly argue that it's good.
It has great acting, cinematography, editing, choosing what to show and more importantly what to not show set pieces, writing, sound design. The execution of basically every filmmaking element is great.
Now again, tell me specifically why it's a bad movie except the "it's unenjoyable" comment, which is not an actual argument.

Most people wouldn't say Threads is "enjoyable" too, but it's a post apocalyptic film which shows the horrors of a nuclear holocaust, it's suppossed to be not enjoyable. Calling it a bad movie because it doesn't have a happy ending would be retarded.

File: 1499599186547.jpg (80KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1366x768px

>>84767381
>it has great writing

Great writing involves real endings and plausible plot developments, anon

File: 1495973242870.png (115KB, 227x400px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 227x400px

>>84767381
>great writing

>>84767139
>people will gladly watch somebody get murdered if it has been shown that they deserve it
And that's a problem?

>>84767464
What's not plausible about what happens in the film? The two boys took advantage of Tim Roth and Naomi Watts' kindness. Are you this guy: >>84767317 ? Because I'd like you to answer my shit here: >>84767375

As an audience, we're pretty much desensitized to violence/gore, so when we watch this film, perhaps we're supposed to feel/take responsibility for what's happening to the characters on the screen.

But what if im a bloodthirsty bastard who enjoys the good ole biblical retribution and guantanamo bay and so on? I just don't think this movie is for me.

The Hunt is also basically just a constant mental and physical beat down of the main character throughout the film, but people generally like the film although they were heavily frustrated/anxious while watching, probably even more than in Funny Games.
Why is that? Is it because it has that false happy ending where everything seems fine until he get's shot at in the woods at the end, but normies just take it as a "le ambigous ending"?

Would Funny Games be a good film for you just if it had a happy ending?

>>84767522
>>84767375
Its not about good or bad its when the movie forgoes storyline beats which have been woven into cinema (tropes) in exchange for something very plausible But too meta and too detached. Realism does not mean better, we don't watch movies to see real possible happenings where some psychos murder families, we can read the police rapports after serial killers or whatever.
Cinema is about feel good stories, at the end of it, But i guess feeling smug and superior could be a reason to like this film

>>84767522
I'm not >>84767317 I'm the screeching autist that's already written 50 paragraphs in this thread so far.

The film is intentionally implausible, and it describes itself, truthfully, as such.

You can say that when the film is rewound it's an important moment, and you're right, it is. It's the key turning point when the film is trying to intentionally irritate its audience with it's implausibility, and it's irritating in the same way the heroes winning via implausibility is irritating, and that way, is that it's lazy, bad writing. Any of us morons can come up with another twenty, stupid plot developments would irritate any audience. The trouble here is that audience irritation is conflated with critising their apparently bloodlust. This is only correlation however: they feel irriated by bad writing, also they want the heroes to win using violence - what a scathing critique!

In answer to this >>84767375 you can make an audience feel bad in a good way, one example: plausibly killing off a well-loved character. If the writing is fair, the audience will feel sad, but no irritation at the writing. You can kill off the same character, by implausibly having the bad guy simply wish for the character to die, which then somehow kills him. This is implausible, stupid, bad writing, and even if it were critiquing something (unlike Funny Games) it'd still be a piece if of shit (like Funny Games)

>>84767656
The main character is a good guy in hunt. His life will be shit but he still has friends and family. It definitely is more ambigous than an ending where a family is murdered and then the psycho kids move to the next house

>>84767656
Probably because it's not shitty writing, see people that actually have brains can tell the difference between subversion and retarded storytelling

>>84767681
>Cinema is about feel good stories
But now you're pigeonholing what art can be. Apocalypse Now is not a feel good story by ANY means. Would you call that a bad film?

>>84767706
>If the writing is fair, the audience will feel sad, but no irritation at the writing. You can kill off the same character, by implausibly having the bad guy simply wish for the character to die, which then somehow kills him. This is implausible, stupid, bad writing, and even if it were critiquing something (unlike Funny Games) it'd still be a piece if of shit (like Funny Games)
I can dig that.

>>84764959
>a statement of how retarded horror movies are
further evidence that haneke has nothing going o upstairs. horror is an essential part of cinema, that uses the actual strengths of the medium rather than just offering up an inferior copy of what the written word can do. there's a reason why almost all the great directors have done horror movies.

>>84767681
>Cinema is about feel good stories

How fucking ignorant can you be? Yeah all the great films are exclusively feel good stories, No Country for Old Men is feel good, Apocalypse Now is also a happy one, Taxi Driver is so positive.as well.
Yeah man nailed that one, sure thing buddy.

>>84767464
>Great writing involves real endings and plausible plot developments, anon
no it fucking doesnt you pleb
there are no rules in cinema, quit thinking films have to meet some fictional quota in order for them to become 'good'. films dont have to be enjoyable.

>>84767707
The main characters in Funny Games are decent people too. Also no it's not ambiguous at all, it's a very direct message that he will never be truly safe/free and that no matter what evidence he has there will always be someone who thinks he did it no matter what. It's a pretty fucking sad ending, false allegations are a scary thing.
The only thing that's ambiguous is the identity of the shooter, which is made on purpose to represent all the people who will think he did it no matter what.

>>84767681
>Cinema is about feel good stories
O P I N I O N D I S C A R D E D

>>84767766
>there are no rules of cinema
>films dont have to be enjoyable
Sure, but one that doesn't actually prove that the writing is good, I'm just doing my best to disprove the non-statement "it has great writing", when no actual argument is provided it's the best I can do; and two if your film is not enjoyable, and in this case intentionally so, """fans""" should probably be more understanding when NO ONE fucking enjoys the actual film - you can call them plebs all you want but if it's unenjoyable, and they didn't enjoy it, then they're probably going to assume it's a piece of shit, even if it's a work of genius (which, unenjoyable though it may be, Funny Games is not)

File: 4939167-7370520111-cCQB7m.jpg (144KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1252x1252px

Maybe it's the fact that I thought the movie wanted me to root for the antagonist. I don't know about everyone else, but when I watch a movie I like to empathise, put myself in a character's shoes and see the world through their eyes, even though they might not be the hero of the story. I really enjoyed apocalypse now and no country for old men because the antagonists were very likeable. I just don't understand how someone can relate to the faggots in Funny Games, my only choice was to be the victims and i took it very personal. Is "revenge is bad" the message of this movie? Because you'd be thinking differently when someone murders your son in front of you.

>>84767879
Have you seen Threads?

>>84767898
>just don't understand how someone can relate to the faggots in Funny Games
No one did.

>my only choice was to be the victims and i took it very personal
Then the movie succeeded.

>Is "revenge is bad" the message of this movie?
No, the message is stop being desensitized to on-screen violence.

>>84764803
>watching remake

you fucked up. the original is ten times better

>>84767910
Nope

Look, for me, personally, all I'm after in a film is something well-written. The writing can be in the direction, in the acting, in the cinematography, and that's great if it is, but really in the end, I want someone great to have sat down and really written something well. What is good writing? It's impossible to describe in a vacuum. But when you sit down and write a character rewinding the film he's in, holy fuck you'd better have a good reason. A good reason might be because it's a criticism of something.

Well, when you write a criticism of something, people should be able to argue HOW it's a criticism of something, otherwise your film failed, except in swaying the minds of simple men, simply repeating instead of understanding.

How is Funny Games a criticism of the mindless consumption of violence? I'd love for someone to explain to me.

>>84767746
Those stories all have an essence of good and of the feeling of betterment in them. Kurtz dies, Martin Sheen can move on. The wifey in No Country manages to defy Chigurr and the sheriff's story talks of a glimmer of hope.
In Taxi Driver we see the only ending the character of Travis could've had, we feel sad for him but he is sort of content. We followed him there, and it feels worth it to be a witness.

File: French Plantation.png (152KB, 400x202px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 400x202px

>>84767746
Apocalypse now was visually stunning, had interesting characters, smelled like napalm and felt like an adventure. So yeah, it did FEEL good to watch it.
Unlike Funny games which I will forget about in a few days.

>>84764803
Hated that fucking movie. The antagonists were just so fucking stupid I wanted to punch them in the face.

>>84767951
>the message is stop being desensitized to on-screen violence
LMAO what are you a suburban mother? Should we ban videogames too? You do realise that on-screen violence should be as effective as it is filmed i.e. a good director can move you, whilst a bad director will fail to, it's not real and it's not normal for people to react to pretend violence as if it were real
>>84767981
10x0=0

>>84767898
But those films are clearly not "feel good stories" like you said cinema should be.
You just keep moving goalposts when you realize you made retarded ass statements so now you switched to relating to the characters, which is also a retarded argument because "relating" is such a stupid surface-level argument for understanding/appreciating any artform that does not indicate the quality of said film in any way. You can fully relate to a certain character with the film still being complete and utter dogshit.

But I'm sure you will reply to this post with switching the subject yet again like in all previous posts you made so what's the point of this discussion anyways.

>>84767844
Cinema is not real life. Cinema is all about narrative. An unrelentingly depressing movie still needs a positive feeling somewhere in it or the audience will reject it.
Or it can pander to artfags and their conditioned brains and there's no need for narrative or anything

>>84768107
He is not me, anon. I'm phoneposting

>>84768112
Watch Threads.

>>84768112
>there's no need for narrative
What are you even saying here? Funny Games had a narrative, it just wasn't a happy one at the end.

>>84768112
Anon I'm trying to tear this piece of shit film apart and you're stealing all my (You)s with your weak arguments

>>84768070
is that your first haneke film?

honestly funny games is his most entry level film. go watch 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance or Time of the Wolf if you really want to get a frustrating film

File: 1499145076444s.jpg (4KB, 250x218px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x218px

>>84767951
I'm not desensitized to the violence. Afterall, it's the violence against innocent people that made me hate the antagonists.
Is this Haneke guy saying that we should cry when smug ass psychos without a motive get killed by the people they torture? The audience isn't cheering for violence, they are cheering for justice.

>>84767951
>the message is stop being desensitized to on-screen violence.
But why? What would Haneke rather we do with our time, and why doesn't he lead by example?

>>84764803
Let's see what our God and emperor Roger Ebert thought of it

>>84766454
But in real life it's 100% justified to cheer and feel good when shitty, psychotic, evil people are given what they deserve for hurting good people. Like when a terrorist or nigger is gunned down....only absolute dickless faggots cry over the deaths of shitty monsters who happily murder you and your family because they feel like it, and it's not wrong to feel good about seeing them wiped from the earth.

>>84768245
>I'm not desensitized to the violence
Well most people are. Most people watch a film like John Wick where a guy kills endless hordes of people in many brutal ways just because they killed his dog and enjoy it.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it too. I am just explaining the reasoning of this film.

>>84768245
>>84768332
Because Haneke's a fraud and both of you blew the fuck out of yet another shitty interpretation of his garbage film in only a couple of lines with no effort at all
>>84768362
Anon, if I raped and murdered your mother in front of you, I promise that you would react. You are not desensitized to violence in the slightest thanks to John Wick, you just sound as dumb as Haneke

>>84767951
>No, the message is stop being desensitized to on-screen violence.
Than to what? What should I be desensitized to?

>>84764803
Martyrs

>>84768392
>Anon, if I raped and murdered your mother in front of you, I promise that you would react.

unless im missing something he literally didn't say he wouldn't, he just explained what the movie was trying to say?

>>84768437
Is that the film where a dude kills a guy by fucking his eye hole even though that wouldn't have killed him?

>>84768392
I'm pretty sure he's talking about violence in movies rather than real life violence

>>84768454
Eye socket is right in front of your brain
He literally fucked his brains out which can kill

>>84768487
Right in front of our brain protected by bone and skull. Our brain isn't directly behind our eyes. The optic nerve snakes though a small hole and then goes to the brain.

Anyone who hated this piece of shit can listen to this for sweet sweet catharsis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5p9iWs5ueI

>But it's also a really annoying experience, [...] it's like being lectured, it is like being spoken down to from on high by someone with great moral superiority [...] "You're a very bad person for wanting to see this stuff and consequentially I'm going to make sure you have a really really bad time"

Hanekefags BTFO

>>84764803
I was more frustrated the director loved the smell of his own farts so much he scene for scene remade his old film to finger wave at a wider audience

File: sasa.jpg (77KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x800px

>>84768362
Yeah well I thought about that. It's very different when some generic nameless baddies get killed in some action flick that you watch for the explosions. (I haven't seen any john wick films yet)
You already know they don't really matter since gang members and soldiers die everyday and they've basically signed up for this.
Now if some villain decides to blow up a building full of civillians, I will be pretty sensitive about it.

>>84767109
Christ, son.

The message of the movie works fine. The only thing I would change is have the whole remote control thing instead be the mother day dreaming.

File: smug elsa.jpg (30KB, 456x402px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 456x402px

>>84768623
>The message of the movie works fine

Hah hah, hah

>>84768437
I agree with this more than OP

I dislike films you can start watching 30 minutes from the end and not miss anything

>>84767108
How "real life" is a rewinding your death away?

>Because films should not be exclusively made as feelgood "entertainment".

But funnygames is feelbad anti entertainment. It's sole purpose is to fuck around with something that works (even if it's overly saturated) without making his own thing work.

>>84767139

It's not like the movie was "violence is bad", it was simply a frustrating watch of someone getting away with stuff.

Overall can't violence point be shown much more strongly by making the "good guy" go full on nuclear on his wrongdoers, making them suffer, fucking with their families etc. to a point where a person would begin to think that yeah, maybe "deserving it" is a very complex concept and automatically accepting bad things happening to the "bad" people isn't the right thing to do. Kind of like what law abiding citizen did but much more extreme. Instead this guy created something to be smug not once but fucking two times. I mean how much of a self righteous asshole one has to be to do something like that?

File: 960.jpg (146KB, 466x960px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 466x960px

Also to those saying that there is nothing wrong with the movie in terms of cinematography and whatnot, imagine this. This painting of a penis was made using good quality paint, canvas and techniques. The colors are nice too. The only problem is that it's literally a drawing of a dick, just like this movie is a piece of shit despite technically being "well produced".

>>84764803
The point of the film is that the torturers are the audience. You could stop it at any time, but you choose not to. You watch it for your own entertainment.

I'm not saying its good, but that's the reason its like it is.

>>84768725
This is the best description by far, except that the audience is also the victim.

You can, and should switch off the piece of shit before you suffer through any more of it, and if you sit through it all the way to the end it's your own damn fault

>>84768670
>guy makes a movie to punish people for their lust for cinema violence
>more than a decade later this thread is full of triggered faggots bitching about it

Yah bruv I think it worked.

File: anon thanks so much for solving the mystery of the druids.jpg (923KB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 3008x2000px

>>84768784
He certainly punished people by making a shit film, if only it was good enough to work on his own fans

I guess his films only work on smart people

>>84768568
>Now if some villain decides to blow up a building full of civillians, I will be pretty sensitive about it.
Every Avengers movie has a big fight where countless building in the centre of the city are being destroyed and most probably thousands of people die every minute. I doubt anyone was "sensitive" about it while watching.

File: 1499148944681.jpg (166KB, 1200x1199px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x1199px

>>84768725
After the kid died and it became clear what type of movie this was (I've got no problem with kids dying in movies or games, yet here it felt like a turning point where they said "fuck you, this film is edgy and nonconformist") so I kinda skipped through till the end because I was still hoping for some form of revenge, I wasn't watching it to see some poor family get beat up.

>>84768524
If you have snakes in your brain, you might want to get that checked

>>84768694
Just to add to my shitty points, the thing is general audience doesn't really enjoy cinema violence all that much. They do accept action movie "violence" but there it's clearly just a play, the victims have no sticking points to empathize with.

So basically his target group are horror movie fans but those guys don't care who suffers as long as someone does, i mean it's one of the common tropes that divine retribution never comes.

I didn't want to watch his movie, i just heard that he is someone that has something to say but it turns out that words fall from his mouth like shit from ass.

File: xdAN82S.jpg (166KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1280x720px

>>84768870
Capeshit movies are garbage anyway. The audience is mostly children and teenagers who don't care about the plot at all and the whole thing is just a cashgrab to sell more toys. Dont bring them into an argument please. (there might be exceptions, like watchmen or something, but you're probably not thinking about those)

>>84767981
how can people think this
theyre shot for shot the same
it works better in the remake because american audiences were the originals intended audience

>>84768901
The minute it broke the 4th wall I knew I had been tricked and it was going to be a 3deep5me movie

>>84768623
>the mother day dreaming
I personally think that wouldn't change the weakness of the scene. It's still fucking with the audience. But I guess that was Haneke's goal anyhow.
The fact is that a movie constructed this way appears kinda poor when you look up the script. It's about two mental sadistic guys. And that is that. At least, when you see it as a movie, meaning as a piece of art that is supposed to entertain you. The message analysis comes afterwards, but I don't think I can enjoy a movie just cause I'll see something BEHIND it, I have to see some effort also in the surface.

>>84764959
I would say it was a commentary on violence in cinema

>>84769029
He obviously didn't watch the remake
Imagine this if you will. People have opinions on things they don't know. People write reviews for things they haven't finished.

>>84769116
Are you suggesting people will also defend garbage movies that berate you for expecting to enjoy them?

>films are good if they evoke emotion
>except when I don't like the emotion, then they're bad

The reason this one stands out so sorely is because nobody else even attempts commentary like this.

>>84769174
>except when I don't like the emotion, then they're bad
see
>>84767706
>you can make an audience feel bad in a good way
also see
>implausible
>stupid
>bad

>>84769155
People. Will. Defend. Anything.
Especially if they think they will feel superiority over others; an excessive amount of smugness

>>84769277
Why do you think the situation is implausible? There are numerous accounts of people torturing others to death just for their own pleasure.
There is a whole compilation of videos of some russian teenagers looking for homeless people and beating them to death for fun.

>>84764803
I really liked devils rejects, too bad about the rest of zombies films

File: sdasdas.jpg (520KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2000x1000px

>>84769352
I watch movies to escape reality anon. I will watch a documentary if it's interesting.
No one should watch some shitty movie just because it's unusual, groundbreaking and sends a message. The message of funny games could have been written on a piece of paper and it would have spared me 2 hours of my life.

A lot of movies have a message, but the writer actually works to hide it deep under the narrative, while showing us an actual story that is enjoyable. Then, after the movie has ended we can take the time to think "but wait a minute what did he ACTUALLY mean by this?". If during the movie it becomes obvious that he's trying to sell you on his idea, that means the writer is some lazy fuck who thinks he's some sort of intellectual.

Why is everyone so cut at this movie? It was hilarious. It seems the more people hated it the more they were affected by it. Especially since you have to so fiercely defend your hatred for the film.

Plus jellyrolls

>>84768694
>Overall can't violence point be shown much more strongly by making the "good guy" go full on nuclear on his wrongdoers, making them suffer, fucking with their families etc. to a point where a person would begin to think that yeah, maybe "deserving it" is a very complex concept and automatically accepting bad things happening to the "bad" people isn't the right thing to do. Kind of like what law abiding citizen did but much more extreme. Instead this guy created something to be smug not once but fucking two times. I mean how much of a self righteous asshole one has to be to do something like that?

That connects with what people are saying above--it's not violence audiences are cheering, it's justice. Showing how justice is more complex than "kill the bad guys" might be more effective than "violence is bad, ok?"

>>84769694
>A lot of movies have a message, but the writer actually works to hide it deep under the narrative, while showing us an actual story that is enjoyable. Then, after the movie has ended we can take the time to think "but wait a minute what did he ACTUALLY mean by this?". If during the movie it becomes obvious that he's trying to sell you on his idea, that means the writer is some lazy fuck who thinks he's some sort of intellectual.

I fudamentally disagree withe very single sentence here. If you want to show that the sky is blue, you show the sky, not some elaborate wannabe "deep" symbol of the blue sky. Direct symbolism is so fucking cheap and actually makes the film ironically more definite and simple because there is a singular answer to every frame/scene and once you get it there is nothing left to it, that's it.
Movies aren't puzzles which you have to put in a certain kind of way to "get" them.