SLAM!

One of the things that is great about looking at every entry on the list is seeing the posters for each film. I haven't come across a single one that wasn't pleasant to look at or wasn't smartly designed.

They weren't kidding when they called it an entry-level horror film. Sounds like a very hard PG. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was somehow PG, too, so I'm expecting the films to be somewhat similar.

DC better get The New Gods out quickly if they don't want to be outdone yet another time.

The Truman Show is a great film and I'm glad it made the list! Force Awakens made it too... well, it's not like that's a bad film or anything! I've seen it five times and it was great each time in my opinion!

Die Hard is such a great film! I love how presents its action and what the filmmakers choose to.base it around!

Week 4: Yes Deadpool 2 has goos enough reviews to ignite fan excitement like all of superhero films do these days.

I've never seen this one, but if this one is on here, I'll mentally prepare myself to see T2 further up on the list.

Now, the fault as to why the prequels aren't viewed as art mainly lies on George Lucas. Hayden Christensen was doing his best with the character; fans dislike it because it was, for the most part, a more subdued and dramatic approach to Star Wars than many people were expecting. That's not to suggest the films are good. I mean, I haven't seen the first two prequel films all the way through, but to me, at least that scene that I was commenting on -- not the prequels in their entirety -- treated its subject matter with a better sense of empathy than the description of the overly grotesque depictions of murder in Von Trier's film. You can go to the thread where everyone was posting their top 100 lists, and see for yourself that I've watched some pretty visceral films, including (but not limited to) The Matrix, Do The Right Thing, Jean Luc-Godard's Breathless, Festen / The Celebration, Ghost in the Shell, The Dark Knight (which I've seen several times), Children of Men, Raging Bull, Logan, Whiplash, Die Hard, American Sniper, and, of course, Passion of the Christ. Of course, these are balanced with a lot of films that would generally be considered acceptable for all audiences, such as Spirited Away, Wall-E, and Mary Poppins, which I genuinely believe should be considered classics along those more violent movies. Oh, and I don't know why I forgot to put Snowpiercer on my list. So I mean no offense, but I would consider doing proper research before attempting to label me as a child. Why shouldn't I do everything I do with joy? Why shouldn't I be happy that I have the freedom to express my opinion? And why should my age and inexperience hold me back from having something to say? I do agree with this.

Get Out, Psycho, and The Sound of Music were all on my list. Classic films in their own right!

This is going wide according to Box Office Mojo.

Okay. That makes sense. I mean, while I'm no child and could probably watch this in a film class if I had to, I'll stick to my own opinion and try and refrain from watching them, and I won't personally consider it to be art. But I won't infringe on your right to call it art. Please accept my apology.

Personally, I love learning new ideas that I've never known before. I've learned a whole lot of things in college thus far. I just think that some ideas that don't make any sense to me. The idea that a filmmaker can be overly visceral in order to satisfy their own artistic desires? I'm not sure if that idea makes sense to me. But new ideas abou racism from Get Out and Django Unchained? New ideas about politics from Isle of Dogs and Citizen Kane? Those new ideas are awesome! Films like that are one of many reasons as to why I'm a film enthusiast! Robbed in the sense that such a film might seem to be satisfying, but in the end, doesn't really satisfy them in the end. Then again, that could be any film. While I do regularly defend faith-based films, I don't think I'd ever want to defend the films you describe. I absolutely think it's wrong for a film to be anti-Semetic. But as much as I think it might be a misunderstanding, I'm sure that those films are less art and more sermon. I've never really heard of these films that talk about a 'war on Christmas'; these films aren't speaking against one's right to celebrate Hanakkuh, right? That'd be a horrible thing for those filmmakers to do. And... how in the world would there be a war on Christmas?! Like... huh?! Well, I'll say this: maybe bad films really are art by definition. But I'll stand by my beliefs and refuse to consider them as art. But other people can if they want. What I'm saying is, I agree with pretty much everything you say. Thank you for that.

Well, it might not be worthless or devoid of interest to the people that might like a film such as this. That doesn't mean a film is art. Cynics of the MCU films have the right not to consider those films as art in the same way. My naive autistic teenage mind thought that society as a whole could come to an agreement that this kind of glorification of murder was wrong and unwarranted... I hope it still is for the majority of people. I hope that the people who would make a film like this aren't a major part of the public, as you say. I am absolutely against forcible silencing, but I'm for common courtesy. I'm for coming together and choosing to rise above things that are overly harmful. Hopefully I'm not sounding pretentious when I say that I don't want to watch people being murdered on the screen. And... I don't exactly know where the line should be. I just know that it should be somewhere. And I admit that I wouldn't wnat to be deciding it alone. But there should definitely be one in my opinion. It's a moral thing. It's a common courtesy thing. That's all it is. I'm not trying to force anyone to make palatable films here. I'm just speaking out against disgusting depictions, voicing out my desire for a stronger sense of integrity. That's assuming the film is releases in theaters or VoD or any sort of format in the domestic market so that we even have chance to examine it at all. But in any case, you're right. I haven't seen the scene. But aren't I allowed to say that a certain way of depicting it, possibly the most likely it was depicted based on the amount of people that walked out of that theater, would be wrong? That thing about him murdering hid audience was a suggestion linking the verse in the Bible stating that hatred is equal to murder to the assumption that subjecting an audience to sucb depiction could possibly be a form of hatred. I don't know enough about the filmmaker to know for sure though. I only say these things because I care about other people, out of a genuine belief that it is, at the very least, possible for a film like this to be harmful. I am just trying to suggest that, maybe, just maybe, filmmakers should be more courteous of their audiences. This is the place of morality that I've developed over the course of many years -- I agree that one cannot take a moral high ground instanteneously, I agree that it takes humility and dedication to reach a moral standpoint -- and I really do think that, if people are willing to, they can and should view this film as something that isn't right. I just think that this film belongs in an outlier section alongside stuff like Cannibal Holocaust and The Human Centipede, stuff that would reasonably be called unnecesary. Maybe I was a little condescending, and I apologize for that. But I really do think that there are better, more dignified films out there for people to watch, and I am relieved that it is a good 99.9% of films that are truly treat their audiences with respect. If you're interested in a film like this, that's okay. But if it really does depict gruesome actions, then I am absolutely willing to use second-hand reports and outrage to speak against a film like this, and I will encourage others to do the same. It's just that I care about other film enthusiasts and I think it would be a shame if they really did end up robbed by the films they chose to consume. Thank you for pointing out the flaws in my argument, and I promise to uphold myself to think before speaking and be more clear about what I'm really saying in the future.

The only Tarantino film I've ever seen was Django Unchained, and I saw it as a part of my first film class in college. It does have quite a few things to say about racism, but I found myself repulsed by its violence. I do think it is a lot better than the mere descriptions of this film, because at least the violence isn't senseless. But I was still extremely repulsed by its content, and if I ever see a Tarantino film ever again, it'll be Pulp Fiction (by virtue of its status as all-time great, 'essential viewing') and nothing else.

It's on Google Play, too.

This scene does a much better job at arousing a sense of empathy in the viewer. It uses the tell approach rather than the show approach, just like the fisherman in Jaws when he told the story of his survival of the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis just moments after World War 2. And it causes the viewer to feel sad about what is happening. The House That Jack Built, on the other hand, is taking a route that does not allow for empathy -- only death, only disgust.

This isn't just my own view of it. Something they teach in writing school is that good art starts with empathy. Unfortunately, it seems from the reactions that Lars Von Trier is not only depicting these actions, but subsequently reveling in them. He seems to be glorifying and glamorizing the sin of murder. I have a hard time believing over one hundred people would have walked out if the scenes were even the least bit empathetic. The casting aside of empathy is not art. It is the failure to be art.

Do you think that a depiction of a crime can go so far as to go from being art to being obscene? Just this year, we have tons of other films in the Cannes lineup striving to give important messages. And then we have this film, and what it depicts. I don't think this deserves to stand beside films like Everybody Knows, BlacKKKlansmen, Shoplifters, Ash is Purest White, Under The Silver Lake, etc... to suggest that this film is art, just like those films are art, is pretty sickening. There needs to be limits in art. There needs to be points where a filmmaker crosses a line and the public as a whole can rightfully say that it is obscenity, rather than art. Art and obscenity are two different things, and I am arguing that, when you film a scene in which -- spoiler alert, for those who care -- the lives of two small children are taken away by the headshots -- yes, headshots -- from a serial killer and his gun, that isn't art. That is obscenity, because there is no meaning in showing such scene other than shock value and the very obvious and trite "murder is wrong". There is absolutely 0% chance that Lars Von Trier was completely unaffected by a malicious intent that crept into his mind and told him that he would enjoy giving people negative reactions. He might as well be murdering his own audience, as he has no respect for any of them -- no respect for the ones who are rightfully repulsed by what's on screen, and no respect for the ones who are tricking themselves into thinking they enjoy such content and are thus being demoralized, their very souls suffering devastating corrosion. Yes, this is a film, something that is commonly called art. It's not a work of fiction as you say, because it is (unfortunately) based on a true story (correct me if I'm wrong). But art is supposed to have meaning, and just as the murders themselves were senseless, the act of filming such murders is equally senseless, and equally reprehensible at that. If the depiction of the mutilation of women and children is defined as art, then it's time we take a stand and call for a change in the definition of art.

I need to stop forgetting about good films. If it was fresher in my mind, it might've been on my list, too. Definitely next time, though.

Lionsgate must be fleeing Halloween (the movie, not the holiday). This new date is three weeks after The Nun and three weeks before Halloween, so it now has its own window. I'm predicting that it'll have a gross in-between Jigsaw and Happy Death Day.

Abstain

Winter Soldier is legitimately awesome, and will be remembered as one of the very best MCU films. That what happens when you let your films address pertinent topics such as the theme of security.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

I understand that art -- that is a key word here -- is supposed to provoke a reaction. My argument is that the "mutilation of women of children" is not something that any sane person would call art.

I think I actually agree with the people that walked out. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for artistic integrity. But subjecting an audience to such obscenity? Where is the integrity in that? Now we have an inkling as to why the film didn't join the official Cannes selection list right away.