Incidentally, last night we watched Apocalypto, which had an appalling interest in filming the dynamics of blunt instruments puncturing human flesh. I liked the sets and costumes in the Mayan city, although I've read they were extremely ahistorical. I did not like the manipulative use of children in peril or the aforementioned obsession with the mechanics of physical human frailty. And the blocking was utterly ridiculous. How does a group of armed men run in a perfect V with only inches between them?

Actually, I've never seen either of the Hostels or any of the Saw movies for much the same reason.

The first two Saw movies are pretty good, actually. Not what I expected. A little graphic, but the fun is more in the mind games. The first movie especially is much more of a psychological thriller; there isn't all that much graphic violence.

I'm pretty committed to avoiding them at present. Life's pretty short, and there's a whole lot of great movies I haven't seen.

I liked the first Saw movie. There's surprisingly little graphic violence in it, and it really fucks with your head. I didn't see the rest, as I don't tend to enjoy torture as a franchise. I believe in characters going through extreme events to learn about the characters; not characters going through extreme events as the entertainment value.

If for nothing else, I'm glad Apocalypto was made because it came out at about the same time as Gibson's anti-Semetic meltdown, and led to this.

Goners goes Missing In Action: [link] (I wrote it).

Never saw either, but I figured those were abhorrent from the reviews.

Apart from FACES OF DEATH (despite some of the obviously fake footage, the entire concept of the movie was offensive), which an acquaintence insisted on us watching, IRREVERSIBLE was probably the most repugnant viewing experience of my life (and I've seen some pretty grotty exploitation movies in my time). Very well directed (if deliberately annoying at times), but utterly repellant.

TROUBLE EVERY DAY was just flat out disturbing, which I kinda respect in a movie. If it had been another, more appropriate actor in the Vincent Gallo role, I might put it fairly high on my recommendation list, but he was just too wrong (or too on the nose) for the part. It needed a "yuppie" not a "loony", especially since he looked like a refugee from a 70s boogie band instead of a corporate executive.

Irreversible really, truly disturbed me. I've seen all kinds of crap, and that was the first thing to make me feel bad for watching it.

Irreversible really, truly disturbed me. I've seen all kinds of crap, and that was the first thing to make me feel bad for watching it.

Seriously. I've wanted to take a shower after movies I've enjoyed before (THE GRIFTERS comes to mind), but IRREVERSIBLE made me want to durmabrade my skin off, so to speak.

eta I felt violated by the movie. And I think that was the director's intention. Unlike FUNNY GAMES, I can't see a reason WHY he wanted the audience to feel so violated, except that he could.

The smashing in of the face with fire thing was.... Not my best cinema going experience ever.