Richard arrives later and he tries to console Jennifer while, at the same time, blaming her for the assault as she is 'too beautiful to resist', I think is what he said. Dimitri, the other guy, walks in, watches the rape for a few seconds and the leaves without doing anything. Long story short, one of Richard's buddies, Stan, ends up raping Jennifer after she rebuffed his advances since, the night prior, Stan felt that she had come on to her due to a provocative dance. Richard's (the married man) two buddies show up a day before they're supposed to. They go to his secluded house in the desert for an annual hunting trip. The story sees Jennifer is in a relationship with a married man. Does that work as a plot device? I guess it does, but it doesn't feel tasteless, which is honestly surprising.
#Quark 2018 review minecraft movie
This, of course, falls under the exploitation genre, but, even then, the film sort of uses the rape as the jumping off point for everything else the movie has to offer. In exploitation movies, however, that all goes out the window. Again, the goal for Hope was to tell that story of the parents rebuilding their daughter's life from scratch and a father desperately hopeful to reconnect with his daughter after a traumatic experience. There's some melodramatics in this movie as well, but they're not as overbearing as it was in Don't Cry, Mommy. However there are movies like Hope (I believe that's what it's called), another South Korean movie, where the rape (of a little girl) is used to tell a story about a father regaining his daughter's trust. The person that was raped wasn't really a character, she was just a device to get that girl's mother to take matters into her own hands. That movie was so exploitative that, really, the rape was nothing more a way to drive the narrative forward. The example of Don't Cry, Mommy (a terrible South Korean movie) comes to mind immediately. You have to walk a fine line between being, umm, well, exploitative and being sensitive and that's a fine line that most movies are not able to walk. In many ways, however, I think it's far more difficult to explore in films outside of the exploitation genre, like dramas. With that said, as always, I've always believed that rape is a really tricky subject to explore in films. She is put through quite the ordeal in this movie and Matilda is more than up to the task. Overall, however, in the physical side of things, she is tremendous.
The reason I say this is that Matilda, really, doesn't have that many lines in this movie, so you can't get a sense of how good she is or not at that particular aspect of the game. Don't misunderstand me, however, she is tremendous at the physicality of this role, and it is one that is incredibly demanding, what I mean is in terms of her delivery of lines. Anyway, in all honesty, I didn't get much from Matilda out of this movie.
So, can you guess which movie I saw yesterday? I mean, you must be really dumb if you can't figure it out. I mentioned the fact that she starred in this movie, which has been critically acclaimed, and that I reserved judgement on Matilda's talents, or lack thereof, until I saw this movie.
Regardless, I don't think that, if you're a good actor, you're gonna suck in one take and be good in the other, unless you purposely try to suck in one of those takes. But I also pondered as to whether or not that was because the cuts that were chosen weren't exactly the best. In my review of Rings, a terrible soft reboot of the Ring franchise, I mentioned that Matlida Lutz gave one of the worst lead performances I've seen in a long time and I stand by that, she was fucking awful in that movie. We need to talk about this movie's star, Matilda Lutz.
0 kommentar(er)
