Anyone else disturbed?
-
chrispoggiali — 19 years ago(September 10, 2006 04:29 PM)
"'Paramilitary Activities in Urban Areas.' Because all organized revolutionary movements have been thoroughly infiltrated by government agents, the successful acts of sabotage will be carried out by single individuals. A lone saboteur must first assimilate himself into the urban community, assuming a lifestyle indistinguishable from the bourgeois members around him."
Robert De Niro reading from The Urban Guerrilla in HI, MOM!
[This coming from Brian De Palma, a filmmaker so subversive he turned the sicko punchline of GREETINGS into a completely different type of film CASUALTIES OF WAR twenty years later, and nobody noticed] -
divineangel — 19 years ago(January 17, 2007 01:26 PM)
the film starts out great with a fascinating premise, then drops it in favor of the be black baby scene which has nothing to do wit te first part. it is disturbing and the screaming bothered me as did the nonsensical ending.
-
lookoutjoe75 — 18 years ago(January 29, 2008 11:37 AM)
by chrispoggiali (Sun Sep 10 2006 16:29:11) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"'Paramilitary Activities in Urban Areas.' Because all organized revolutionary movements have been thoroughly infiltrated by government agents, the successful acts of sabotage will be carried out by single individuals. A lone saboteur must first assimilate himself into the urban community, assuming a lifestyle indistinguishable from the bourgeois members around him."
Robert De Niro reading from The Urban Guerrilla in HI, MOM!
[This coming from Brian De Palma, a filmmaker so subversive he turned the sicko punchline of GREETINGS into a completely different type of film CASUALTIES OF WAR twenty years later, and nobody noticed] -
JohnnyBlaze1986 — 17 years ago(September 22, 2008 08:25 PM)
It's a good movie. The only thing that I didn't like was that the ending was weak. I looked at the TV(it's on Encore on Demand now) and as soon as he said "Hi, Mom" and the credits showed, I was like "That's it?! WTF?!" It was like that during the "Be Black Baby" scene too. I thought it was some real thing he was filming(YES I know he was the cop in the scene too, but sometimes low budget movies used the same actors in other roles too.) and then come to find out it was a play.
I don't understand the complaining about how disgusting it is. The only turn-off was the swerve and the ending because it came out of nowhere. Then again, I'm used to things like that. I watch Raw.
"What's Your Damage?"
-Heathers -
redhat69 — 17 years ago(March 10, 2009 06:48 AM)
I'm not disturbed. If I have to disturbed, I'll be disturbed in almost EVERY single scene in almost EVERY film! I'll probably end up won't watch any more films, except perhaps some Disney cartoons.
Why do people complaint when they saw some rape scene? The victim ain't DEAD! The only different between a rape scene and sex scene is the 'victim' being against their will. Nudity you ask, how about sex scenes or nude beaches? Talk about dignity, it's the same seeing some fat kid being bullied or a wife beaten by her husband infront of their children. Talk about humanity, people should worry more seeing human being killed on films and ask for banning of murder or torture scenes. And I never heard of a single one, but almost every rape scene is being yelled at.
My point is: rape is bad. But it's not as bad as murder. That is why for killing a person one will probably face life sentence or even death row. But in most country rape don't make death row, not even life. (We're not talking about crime against minors here). And considering the crime itself, ever heard of statutory rape? A murder is always a murder. Statutory rape is not a rape but considered as rape. No murder is a 'considered murder', it's always murder, only the degrees differ. Go figure.
Rape are REAL, tortures are REAL, murders are REAL, etc, etc. That's why it's on films. Wake up!
After all it's only a film, why don't you just turn your head around or close your eyes and plug your ears if you don't want to watch something, the same as some people won't watch disgusting scenes involving feces or something.
I SEE D
UMB
PEOPLE! -
theodore_varengo — 17 years ago(March 31, 2009 11:59 PM)
If I can just throw in my two cents here, a lot of people who say they don't "get" this movie seem to be taking it on a far too literal level. This is experimental cinema and I'm sure was probably more widely appreciated in the social climate of the time it was made. Those who enjoyed it (such as myself, wholeheartedly) recognized it as satire, and appreciate the fact that it was an experimental piecealso some people are put off by movies made many years ago and call them "dated", or can't relate to them, but I'm fascinated by them and interested to know what things were like then. There are different types of filmgoers, and some people enjoy a more mainstream experience with a linear, literal plot, "sympathetic" characters, and a nice, satisfying conclusion where everything gets resolved and wraps up nicely. Then there are people who enjoy something that is open to interpretation, takes risks, delivers a message that on the surface may not be obvious, explores different styles and techniques, is not afraid to shock or offend but does not do it gratuitously, and in the end delivers something out of the ordinary and thought provoking. I feel I'm one of those people and this is one of those films. I'm not above enjoying a mainstream, conventional movie and I'm not judging people that are strictly into movies like that. I just enjoy the rewards of having an open mind.
Insert pretentious signature here -
IceboxMovies — 16 years ago(August 30, 2009 02:36 PM)
Jim Emerson claims that he's seen people run out of the theater screaming during this sequence. That would really be something, wouldn't it?
What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter. -
kipcarson37 — 16 years ago(October 25, 2009 02:56 PM)
I just finished this and thought it was very interesting to say the least.
Could someone explain to me what that one poster above means about the sicko punchline of GREETINGS and CASUALTIES OF WAR? I've seen the latter, but not the former, so I don't get what he means. How are they connected?
Also, where was there an image of a plane nearly crashing into a sky scraper? I didn't see that anywhere? And one more thing, did they actually rape that white woman in the elevator? It seemed like DeNiro showed up just before the black men were able to actually rape her (though they had managed to get her pants/panties off, as well as her shirt). -
james_oblivion — 15 years ago(April 21, 2010 12:10 AM)
Could someone explain to me what that one poster above means about the sicko punchline of GREETINGS and CASUALTIES OF WAR? I've seen the latter, but not the former, so I don't get what he means. How are they connected?
In Greetings, DeNiro's character is a peeping tom, and likes to film women as they undress. He's also trying to con the draft board so he won't have to go to Vietnam. In the end, he fails at the latter, and ends up in Vietnam anywaywhere he proceeds to goad a local woman into undressing for him.
I believe that the above poster is implying that while DePalma played this scene for laughs, he later made a wrenching dramatic film about soldiers committing sexual assault in Vietnam, which is a similar circumstance. -
grapplernz — 16 years ago(January 01, 2010 05:50 AM)
Some parts were gut wrenching, like the rape.
What I found funny was the scene of the "humbled" white people talking about having been part of the be black experience.
I now find out that they were just actors which makes it even better. -
gnolti — 15 years ago(October 21, 2010 05:57 AM)
Hi Mom! falls into the category of the "chaos cinema" that must have seemed very relevant 1969-1970, e.g. The Magic Christian, Candy, et al. So I personally find these films more interesting as cultural artifacts than as great films, although the performances in De Palma's film seemed very Cassavetian, and I'm a Cassavetes fan.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star? -
christomacin — 15 years ago(January 21, 2011 09:17 AM)
First off, it was a fictional film depicting a theater group doing a violent (though staged) bit of "performance art". Second, the girl was physically assaulted, but there was no actual rape. The other people were harassed and got some whacks, but no one was killed. In today's parlance, those people were being "punked", albeit in an extreme form. Not that was any excuse for what the troupe did, but I don't think it was being excused. De Palma seemed to be satirizing the extreme excesses of many left-wing paramilitary and theater groups of the time. This was the "Theater of Revolt" instead of the "Theater of the Absurd". The radical elements in society were becoming more violent and extremist. That was the point of that scene, I think. At the same time, though, the frumpy up-tightness of white society was also being satirized. The fact that after the "show" all of the "audience", even the girl who was attacked, acted as if they had just seen a three act play at a proper theater, and giving it glowing reviews, shows pretty clearly that this was all meant as surreal farce. I say this film was an anarchist satire that targeted pretty much everone and everything of it's time.
-
Thebobo. — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 05:34 PM)
What makes this film disturbing is the fact it starts put as a slapstick sexy comedy and turns brutally dark. You don't see it coming.
Another disturbing aspect is the ending.
Especially since 9/11,a gleeful De Niro blowing up a NYC high-rise just doesn't seem that funny today. Ironically 32 years after this move was released Robert De Niro would narrate the somber documentary 9/11. This is probably one film he regrets.
http://www.youtube.com/user/themisfitsmessiah?feature=mhee