The Dames Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 I just got back from a friends place where I just finished watching the movie "Bully". I've heard a few people talk about it on the board, so I decided to check it out. For some reason, I got it confused with a Rick Moranis/Tom Arnold comedy, but thankfully, this was FAR better. Nick Stahl (John Conner of Terminator 3) plays a kid who is a straight up ASSHOLE. He beats up his best friend on a regular basis, rapes two girls (including his best friends girl), and basically imposes his will on anyone he pleases. Keep in mind that this is a story about teenagers in Florida. Yes, it's VERY gritty. The movie was very shocking with its depiction of teen sex, giving us plenty of full frontal nudity shots both male and female and some deplorable rape scenes that will definitely stick with you. This is all within the first 30 minutes of the film. From then on, we meet some more characters who are all integral to the plot eventually. Basically, all of these loser, spoiled kids decide that they are going to band together to literally murder Stahl's character...but they don't know how to go about it. They finally come up with a plan, but I don't want to ruin what happens... The movie is just so damn compelling as I was just in awe about how stupid these kids were...how deplorable their parents were in terms of raising these kids and how open they were about plotting and committing their crimes. It isn't shown until after the credits, btw, that this is inspired by a true story...which is just sad. Has anyone else seen the film? If so, what are your thoughts? Don't forget to use the spoiler tags. Dames
Mole Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 I loved this movie, and I actually saw it for the first time because I confused it with the Tom Arnold movie.
DangerousDamon Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 this movie was pretty damn good, although watching that kid with man without a face rape girls is little strange........
godthedog Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 i loved it. like 'kids', only with dramatic tension. the first time i saw it was when i had a couple hours to kill before call time for this screwball comedy play i was in, and when i got there i felt like shit. i was flat the whole night. the moral of the story here: if you're in a play that requires you to be funny, DO NOT watch 'bully' before you go onstage.
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Micheal Pitt's Character is the best thing about the movie By the way, does anyone know the current status of the people the movie is about
kkktookmybabyaway Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Seeing how it's the judicial system, everyone is probably either out on parole or appealing their case. I saw this film last week for the first time and found it interesting. I'm not sure if this was an accurate portrayal of America's youth, but the movie sure gave me a chuckle, especially when they were being sentenced. And where were these chicks when I was a teen?...
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Agreed...and one of them is married to Macauley Fuckin Culkin
The Dames Posted September 21, 2003 Author Report Posted September 21, 2003 By the way, does anyone know the current status of the people the movie is about While this Picture is based upon the book "Bully: A True Story of High School Revenge" written by Jim Schutze, some of the characters and persons have been composited, invented and recreated and a number of incidents have been fictionalized, emphasized and exaggerated for dramatic effect.This Picture only covers events up to and including the conclusion of the trial of the defendants depicted in this Picture. Following the trial, some defendants appealed. Here are the results of the various appeals as of the time of the making of this Picture: Lisa Connelly's sentence was reduced to 22 years. Alice Willis was sentenced to 17 years but shall be under community supervision for 40 years upon her release. Martin Puccio's sentence was reduced to life in prison That's taken off of the IMBD.com site. Dames
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Curse My Ignorance of the American Legal System, but what is "Community Supervision" Thanks, btw, Dames, as always
Guest T®ITEC Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 http://www.csosa.gov/css_index.htm ^ I think that this is right, but I'm not really sure.
The Dames Posted September 21, 2003 Author Report Posted September 21, 2003 I would assume that it's like a halfway house, where she's free....but she has to be under constant survelliance. Dames
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Ta very much
Black Lushus Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Do yourselves a favor and read the book that inspired the film...goes into a lot of detail about their lives, for example Ali Willis's days as a teen prostitute and Marty Puccio and Bobby Kent's dabblings in gay porn to make money (just in case you were wondering about all the gay porn junk in the movie, because it kinda comes outta left field the way they portray it)...great movie, better book...Nick Stahl kicks ass too...
Lord of The Curry Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 The movie is average at best, it's selling point is that it uses art-house/indy actors and shock tactics, which in turn = brilliant film, mainly because people are too fucked up to say anything else. When in doubt, praise. (I guess.)
1234-5678 Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 Agreed about Michael Pitt, very underrated, I bet he becomes a big name at some point. He was also very good in "Murder By Numbers". Brad Renfro was also excellent in this.
LooseCannon25 Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 I actually bought the movie on DVD....i liked it. The director comes off to me like a perv though with some of the camera angles and scenes though. Good movie
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 Agreed...and one of them is married to Macauley Fuckin Culkin Rachel Miner WAS married to Macauley Culkin. They are now divorced, and Macauley is dating Mila Kunis of "That 70's Show" fame.
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 The movie is average at best, it's selling point is that it uses art-house/indy actors and shock tactics, which in turn = brilliant film, mainly because people are too fucked up to say anything else. When in doubt, praise. (I guess.) Just because a movie uses certain techniques and talent doesn't mean it wasn't well-crafted and a damn good film. While shock techniques are used improperly most of the time, I found this movie to be a rare case in which they were used appropriately - it befits the bizarre subject matter of the film. The directorial tactics weren't used cheaply, really, as everything was based on fact and was used to further the characterization of the deplorable people contained within the movie. Was it salacious? Yes. Was it explicit? Yes. Was it gratuitous? No, I don't think so. Of course that's just my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it, but saying that we are fucked up and insinuating that we praise because we are in doubt is incorrect and unfair.
Guest Choken One Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Personally, I found it to be shocking for the sake of being shocking. It took the KIDS fourmula and didn't really work. The acting was solid but the direction was shoddy and HORRIBLE.
NoCalMike Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Is there any website or database to read in more detail about the kids before, during, and after the trial? Maybe a website similar to the wm3 website.....
Ripper Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 This was one of the worse films I have seen in a while, mostly because the director was SO infactuated with being SHOCKING~! instead of directing the fucking film. Can someone share with me the point of showing whats her face taking a shit(or piss I can't really remember). Or the points they would be in conversation and the POV would include a shot of Busy Phillips crotch. SHOCKING~! It was pointless and came off as stupid. Then you come to the script which was horrible written. Thankfully, it had some good actors to carry the thing. You could honestly tell where they were allowed to do their own thing and where they were told to do something really REALLY stupid that looked out of place in not at all genuine( Marty Hugging his brother, Marty trying to fight the fat kid...). I hated every second of this film despite the great perfomance of Michael Pitt and others. I really, REALLY hated this movie.
NoCalMike Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 I thought the script was supposed to be horrible though. I mean weren't the kids kind of white trash, illiterate, druggies?
Guest Choken One Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Yes, It wasn't supposed to be Shakespere but you can script a movie with that type of dialouge and STILL be effective... Look at Requiem for a Dream...That's how you do it. Shocking, Horrifying, Scary, Intense, Trumatic, Heartshattering, mindfucking...
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film. Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith. It is awesome too.
godthedog Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Yes, It wasn't supposed to be Shakespere but you can script a movie with that type of dialouge and STILL be effective... Look at Requiem for a Dream...That's how you do it. Shocking, Horrifying, Scary, Intense, Trumatic, Heartshattering, mindfucking... dialogue like that is harder to write than shakespeare-type dialogue. it's VERY hard to make it seem real and immediate. and for the record, the dialogue of 'requiem for a dream' sucked.
Ripper Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film. Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith. It is awesome too. I can understand liking the films, but to call this guy a great director is stretching it alittle. He HONESTLY can't frame a shot, AT ALL. For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue.
Guest Choken One Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 No it's not...It's SO much easier.
godthedog Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film. Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith. It is awesome too. I can understand liking the films, but to call this guy a great director is stretching it alittle. He HONESTLY can't frame a shot, AT ALL. For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue. dude, he has professional people working for him. it's not like his DP is some 15-year-old kid just putting the camera where he's told to. his DP knows what he's doing, everything he shoots is shot that way on purpose. saying you don't like the way he frames a shot is fine, but don't make a blanket claim like "he CAN'T frame a shot." For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue. that's just stupid. it's like if we were having a discussion about martin scorsese and you were trying to prove he was a bad director by saying "look, he made 'bloody mama!'" No it's not...It's SO much easier. then why do so few people get it right?
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 No it's not...It's SO much easier. then why do so few people get it right? Sure, but how many people can write like Shakespeare? Honestly, this is an argument no one can win. Writing is writing - good or bad, not easier or harder.
Youth N Asia Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 I don't think it was as great as people say it is. Seems like people love anything with an indy tag now. I liked it. Maybe enough to get it on DVD, but I don't think it's a classic
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now