USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 It wasn't rape. Edie pulled Tom/Joey in, kissed him, made out. Then things went from that to the sex. That's not rape. Jesus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 It was the flip side of the coin. On one side you have the loving, tender sex and on the other you have the animalistic, rough, I can't believe we did that and now I feel sick sex. I think the scene was about her wanting to see if this monster she was seeing was anything like the man she loved, he scared her but he turned her on and it left her sick and confused. Rape would have been if she didn't pull him into the kiss and they went at it. It was pure animal instinct that everyone hates to admit they have in them and when it comes out, you feel ashamed. He didn't feel ashamed and that's what made her want to get away from him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 That's a fine explanation 2Gold, it's definitely better than the "OMG RAPE~!" one given by some people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theintensifier 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 It was the flip side of the coin. On one side you have the loving, tender sex and on the other you have the animalistic, rough, I can't believe we did that and now I feel sick sex. I think the scene was about her wanting to see if this monster she was seeing was anything like the man she loved, he scared her but he turned her on and it left her sick and confused. Rape would have been if she didn't pull him into the kiss and they went at it. It was pure animal instinct that everyone hates to admit they have in them and when it comes out, you feel ashamed. He didn't feel ashamed and that's what made her want to get away from him. Yeah, I pretty much said the same exact thing a page back. But, you're right, regardless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 It was the flip side of the coin. On one side you have the loving, tender sex and on the other you have the animalistic, rough, I can't believe we did that and now I feel sick sex. I think the scene was about her wanting to see if this monster she was seeing was anything like the man she loved, he scared her but he turned her on and it left her sick and confused. Rape would have been if she didn't pull him into the kiss and they went at it. It was pure animal instinct that everyone hates to admit they have in them and when it comes out, you feel ashamed. He didn't feel ashamed and that's what made her want to get away from him. Yeah, I pretty much said the same exact thing a page back. But, you're right, regardless. It was more or less me agreeing with you but the damn edit didn't give you added props. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theintensifier 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 It's all good man, at least were on the same page. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 It wasn't rape. Edie pulled Tom/Joey in, kissed him, made out. Then things went from that to the sex. That's not rape. Jesus. ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 You must be from Japan. Where rape is like a handshake. Way to spread stereotypes, dipshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 Way to take things too seriously, dipshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2006 Yes because there were so many indicators that you were joking around. Way to backpedal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 23, 2006 I just like to say a year or two ago I really couldn't tell Viggo Mortensen and Hugh Jackman apart. I thought they were basically the same actor and I always got mixed up between who was in Van Helsing and who was in Hidalgo. The bottom line is they are almost "clones" and I'm not talking about how they look obviously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theintensifier 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2006 I just like to say a year or two ago I really couldn't tell Viggo Mortensen and Hugh Jackman apart. I thought they were basically the same actor and I always got mixed up between who was in Van Helsing and who was in Hidalgo. The bottom line is they are almost "clones" and I'm not talking about how they look obviously. That's an excellent observation, I've never noticed until now. That's crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 23, 2006 After 2 or 3 months my latest thoughts on "History of Violence" are that I think after the main character says he is Joey the movie went downhill, there was just much less suspense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2006 Yes because there were so many indicators that you were joking around. Way to backpedal. You're right, I was serious. I thought in Japan they used rape as a ritual form of greeting, in one of the countries with the lowest crime rates. Right. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong about the scene, though. I only watched it once, and I didn't remember she pulled him in for to kiss her before they were screwing. So I'm wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2006 I didnt really love the movie, but it was better than most of the movies I've seen in the last year. I actually laughed when Tom slapped his son after going all anti-violence on him for what he did at school. I did think it was cool that they at least had something in the movie about the son inheriting his fathers violent tendencies which opens up the whole can of worms about that issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zetterberg is God 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2006 Upon my first viewing in the theatre, I enjoyed it. Re-watching it on DVD made me like it even more. I thought that the acting was superb and the film in general was excellent. One of the best from last year. It says something about William Hurt when he can score a Best Supporting Actor nod for minimal screen time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coffin Surfer 0 Report post Posted March 28, 2006 "The only thing I didn't like about the film was the subplot with the son. I don't like the idea of his son having this violent streak because his daddy is Joey." I don't think that's what they were going for. When were introduced to the son he's passive, it's not until after Tom/Joey kills the criminals that we see him attacking his bullies. I think that's significant. It's as if the "heroic act" opened a door for violence in the family or town even, regardless of the genetics. What previously seemed impossible now seems a little more real. I think it has more to do with influence, the son was obviously very much influenced by Tom's passive teachings and when his father peforms acts of "just violence" the son was more open to it. Also, did anybody catch the faint smile on Vigo's face while he's comforting his son after the shotgun blasting? Nice touch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
