the baby on the beach…….really disturbing.
-
bonsai-superstar — 11 years ago(July 18, 2014 06:09 PM)
Are you people for real? Did you understand the movie at all? Every day, people kill bugs without a second thought. Do you care if you kill an
adult
spider or a
baby
spider? Humans were (initially) like bugs to these aliens. That was
the point the filmmakers were trying to make
. 2. It's
fiction
. Can you understand that no babies were actually harmed during the making of this FILM? 3. Grow up. Jesus. -
robhiphop — 10 years ago(April 14, 2015 07:39 PM)
Name me one mainstream, commercial film, like this one, which violates this rule of sympathy for the character(s). Without a sympathetic connection between the audience and the character(s) there is no commercial film.
Why is it important that the example must be from a "mainstream, commercial" film, as you put it?
I doubt very much you're familiar with the films of Bresson, Parajzhanov, Pasolini, or Bruno Dumont, i.e., abstract, noncommercial art films, which sometimes violate or ignore this rule on purpose. This is NOT one of those films. It is clearly intended for mainstream, commercial distribution.
What is it about
Under the Skin
that leads you to believe it's intended to be viewed as a "mainstream, commercial" film?
On the contrary, I would say that the makers of
Under the Skin
were all too aware that it was likely to be a polarising movie that would not necessarily achieve broader mainstream acceptance. If the aim was to achieve as much mainstream acceptance as possible, then almost certainly, the approach to the movie would've been very different than it was.
Naturally, the movie was still "commercially distributed". Without commercial distribution, film making would effectively cease to exist in any meaningful form. There would only be zero-budget fan enthusiast movies and shorts. Even directors working strictly in the field of so-called "arthouse" fare still seek commercial distribution for their movies, as this is the only way for them to sustain a career and continue to make movies. -
StaunchWoman — 10 years ago(February 11, 2016 06:47 AM)
Tormenting or killing off a baby is a no-no, even off screen.
Says you. This is a work of FICTION and to try and control what an artistic medium can and cannot contain is RIDICULOUS!
If you're so sensitive, that a scene in a film can have this effect on you, while knowing for a FACT it's a film You have to take it upon yourself to better control what it is you see. Look deeper into what it is you might watch, just in case.
We've met before, haven't we? -
mimosveta — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 08:02 AM)
not really. It isn't a requirement that the main character be good, they just have to be interesting.
This. People need to stop thinking that overreacting to any scene in fiction, makes them a good person in real life.
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that
Winter Is Coming -
archento — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 03:58 PM)
This movie is not at all about rooting for the lead character. The lead character is fascinating precisely because we're not rooting, we're waiting to see what she does next. In a way, she is studying humanity, and in turn we are simply studying her. It's not as simple as caring or not caring about the protagonist in this film.
-
groovymike_16 — 11 years ago(July 20, 2014 02:50 AM)
I know I was. I was fascinated. Wondering what she would do next.
VERONICA MARS MOVIE - https://www.facebook.com/TheVeronicaMarsMovie?fref=ts -
Onholyservicebound — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 01:54 PM)
The critic reviews are higher, not that critics are law, but their opinions come from a better understanding, and generally less emotional and unreliable.
When it comes to the test of time the critic reviews matter more.