the killer inside me

catefrances

who has seen it?

Claireack

No, is it worth a look?

catefrances

ill get back to you on that... im seeing it at the sydney film festival next weekend.

but all i really need to know is that casey affleck is in it and based on that its totally worth a look. affleck is doing some quality work and the thought of him as a killer is just too divine. plus its a michael winterbottom film. :thumbup:

SoonForgotten2

It's okay. Gruesome in spots. A bit too misogynistic for my tastes. I know that has to do in part with when the film is set and when the book was written, but damn. The end also bothered me for several reasons. Affleck is really good in it, though and it's beautifully shot.

catefrances

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

It's okay. Gruesome in spots. A bit too misogynistic for my tastes. I know that has to do in part with when the film is set and when the book was written, but damn. The end also bothered me for several reasons. Affleck is really good in it, though and it's beautifully shot.

beating people to death should be gruesome... otherwise it wouldnt disturb us and we need to be disturbed about such things.

SoonForgotten2

catefrances wrote:

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

It's okay. Gruesome in spots. A bit too misogynistic for my tastes. I know that has to do in part with when the film is set and when the book was written, but damn. The end also bothered me for several reasons. Affleck is really good in it, though and it's beautifully shot.

beating people to death should be gruesome... otherwise it wouldnt disturb us and we need to be disturbed about such things.

Yeah, I mean I get it. It just goes on and on. It would be just as effective if it were edited down and possibly less disgusting. I really don't mind this kind of stuff and I know that I'll be annoyed by Hollywood's surely sanitised take on "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", but it really is a bit much. Still my biggest annoyance is how pathetic woman are portayed in this film. And, like I said, the ending which just defies all kinds of logic.

catefrances

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

It's okay. Gruesome in spots. A bit too misogynistic for my tastes. I know that has to do in part with when the film is set and when the book was written, but damn. The end also bothered me for several reasons. Affleck is really good in it, though and it's beautifully shot.

beating people to death should be gruesome... otherwise it wouldnt disturb us and we need to be disturbed about such things.

Yeah, I mean I get it. It just goes on and on. It would be just as effective if it were edited down and possibly less disgusting. I really don't mind this kind of stuff and I know that I'll be annoyed by Hollywood's surely sanitised take on "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", but it really is a bit much. Still my biggest annoyance is how pathetic woman are portayed in this film. And, like I said, the ending which just defies all kinds of logic.

i disagree... sanitising the violence would not be as effective. violence is disgusting and should be shown to be so. i want to cringe when i see it, not just sit there munching on my popcorn like it was as benign as sipping a cup of tea. ill get back to you on the ending.



the moment i heard kristen stewart was attached to hollywoods remake of dragon tattoo i lost interest. do they not an original thought?? they screwed up the vanishing.. isnt that enough?

ZiggyStar

catefrances wrote:

i disagree... sanitising the violence would not be as effective. violence is disgusting and should be shown to be so. i want to cringe when i see it, not just sit there munching on my popcorn like it was as benign as sipping a cup of tea.

Very true

catefrances

well i saw it this morning, surprising myself by actually getting to the theatre an hour before the movie started having gotten 5 hours sleep after somewhat foolishly buying tix to see band last night. anyways......


... the lack of sleep was totally worth both the band and the movie.

casey affleck is growing into such a fine actor. he loses his shit so seemlessly in character in this film. i thought simon baker was just playing his tv persona, patrick jane and i suspect thats why he was cast in this role. i have to say i cringed and got teary when lou was beating on joyce.

Claireack

Thanks for the review, will try and see it (although will probably have to wait until it comes out on DVD).

SoonForgotten2

catefrances wrote:

i have to say i cringed and got teary when lou was beating on joyce.

Okay, so now that you've seen this, do you still believe it could have made it's point without being that graphic? I've been thinking about this and I still feel it was really excessive.

catefrances

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i have to say i cringed and got teary when lou was beating on joyce.

Okay, so now that you've seen this, do you still believe it could have made it's point without being that graphic? I've been thinking about this and I still feel it was really excessive.

considering the town thought lou was a quiet guy i think the shown violence served its purpose. it showed in ths instance that in a small town people like to think they know you but they dont really. i didnt consider it excessive cause quite frankly when your intent is to beat someone to death you tend to do so by excess. beating someone should never be shown to be something that can be passed off as normal. its vicious and should be shown to be. tbh i still cant grasp why lou did that to joyce.

SoonForgotten2

catefrances wrote:

tbh i still cant grasp why lou did that to joyce.

I think this is one of the reasons it bothers me so much. It's just so disproportionate to what we know about the character at that point. We know he has a darkside, but that just comes out of nowhere, really. They way it was done, I suppose, comes across are more shocking, but it also seems like a cheap way to develop the character. I dunno, it just doesn't sit well with me.