There's nothing wrong with boycotting films that have a certain theme you don't like, but to constantly come into this thread, ask people for their opinion on the scene, trash it if it doesn't agree with his, use CHUD and RT as his backup, and also suggest that we condone rape if we don't hate the film for having a scene like that is annoying as hell.

In case no one has mentioned it, the rape scene is not a prick tease.
There is no onscreen nudity and it's not sexy.
It is brutal in a violent way.
The uncut print might contain nudity, I don't know.

The entire purpose of horror is to push the envelope of what's acceptable. To horrify. To "get away with" as much violence and horror as society will allow (or rather, what society won't allow). All the true horror classics shattered boundaries of what's acceptable. The reason The Exorcist is held in such high regard is that at the time of release the image of a young girl as a possessed, profanity spewing, masturbating, vomiting demon hadn't been seen before. It unsettled audiences. It broke taboos. It was horrifying. Some, at the time, would have said it was needlessly so.

The reason today's many of today's horror films aren't that great is because not enough filmmakers are pushing that envelope. If something in horror seems gratuitous or needlessly OTT, if it horrifies you, then it's doing its job. It doesn't have to have a point to it. Too many horror films nowadays tread water and play it safe. There aren't enough taboos being broken for fear of incurring the MPAA's wrath.

I'm of the opinion we're due a new breakthrough horror film. Something that horrifies and disgusts people to entirely new levels. An NC-17 masterpiece of depravity and gore. Something so needlessly and endlessly abhorrent that it shocks and appalls even me, a cynical, jaded, horror junkie twat. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about how disgusting and horrifying films like Hostel, Wolf Creek and The Hills Have Eyes are, getting all nervous and anxious about seeing them, and eventually discovering that they're no worse than your average video nasty from the 80s.

Damn it, I want to see a film banned again!

End of rant.

Hmm a movie about an petifilier abortionist eating baby fetuses who terrorizes an airport and burning an american flag while cursing at all american soldiers and spitting on the image of christ would do wonders

Hmm a movie about an petifiler abortionist eating baby fetuses who terrorizes an airport and burning an american flag while cursing at all american soldiers and spitting on the image of christ would do wonders

That wouldn't get banned, people would laugh. I don't believe the problem with horror movies is that they are not pushing the envelope enough. The reality of today's audience is they are much more media and special effects savvy than they were decades ago, so it's simply not going to have the same effect no matter what you do. The only real way to revitalize horror is to simply write interesting stories and have good performances. That is why people gravitatated to the Sixth Sense, it was a rare example of a horror movie being given a classy treatment like real movies in other genres are.

The entire purpose of horror is to push the envelope of what's acceptable. To horrify. To "get away with" as much violence and horror as society will allow (or rather, what society won't allow). All the true horror classics shattered boundaries of what's acceptable. The reason The Exorcist is held in such high regard is that at the time of release the image of a young girl as a possessed, profanity spewing, masturbating, vomiting demon hadn't been seen before. It unsettled audiences. It broke taboos. It was horrifying. Some, at the time, would have said it was needlessly so.

The reason today's many of today's horror films aren't that great is because not enough filmmakers are pushing that envelope. If something in horror seems gratuitous or needlessly OTT, if it horrifies you, then it's doing its job. It doesn't have to have a point to it. Too many horror films nowadays tread water and play it safe. There aren't enough taboos being broken for fear of incurring the MPAA's wrath.

I'm of the opinion we're due a new breakthrough horror film. Something that horrifies and disgusts people to entirely new levels. An NC-17 masterpiece of depravity and gore. Something so needlessly and endlessly abhorrent that it shocks and appalls even me, a cynical, jaded, horror junkie twat. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about how disgusting and horrifying films like Hostel, Wolf Creek and The Hills Have Eyes are, getting all nervous and anxious about seeing them, and eventually discovering that they're no worse than your average video nasty from the 80s.

Damn it, I want to see a film banned again!

End of rant.

I still find it funny BKB feels fit to say the movie could excise the rape without consequence, when he hasn't seen it.

I still dont know how he criticizes people who lean on critics when criticizing movies or using their reviews to sway their opinion of a movie

yet

here he is using reviews that he saw from CHUD and RT to sway his opinion on a movie he hasnt seen. The rape scene wasnt even as graphic or brutal as hes suggesting. Its no more burtal than the scene in Rob Roy where Jessica Lange gets raped by Tim Roth

The film wouldn't have been as emotionally effective without the rape scene to initiate the 'revenge' aspect of the film, you unbelievably deaf moron.

I called you an unbelievably deaf moron for a reason, and you just proved why it's the perfect title.

I didn't say the film was better because of the rape scene. Not once. The scene also wasn't necessary, but it made the film more emotionally effective - understand? Emotionally effective. If you watch the film, you might understand what the hell anyone is talking about. I haven't said that I condone rape, I like to watch rape, or that it made the film better because rape is fun. All of that continues to come out of your mouth and you're not paying attention to what the hell anyone is saying because you have the brain capacity of an 8-year-old child. IT DIDN'T NEED THE SCENE, BUT IT HELPED THE FILM BECOME MORE EMOTIONALLY EFFECTIVE, AND NOT TO MENTION THAT THE RAPE SCENE WASN'T EVEN THAT GRAPHIC, YOU IDIOT. There is no nudity even shown. None whatsoever. You're throwing everything out of proportion and basing your whole arguement on the review of someone from CHUD, when normally, you'd be defending the film and trashing the reviewer.

So, let's review:

- You're a moron.
- The rape scene wasn't necessary, but it helped the film be more emotionally effective.
- The rape scene wasn't all that graphic, and very short.
- You're a moron.
- Emotionally effective.

If you don't understand by now, I refuse to even read your posts.

that whole "it wasn't NEEDED" argument is really annoying, as you could say that about a ton of scenes in a ton of different movies. It was in the movie for all the reasons Zing said, also, IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL! If you have such a problem with the scene (despite the fact that you haven't seen the movie and should not be saying anything about it) then complain about the original and why Wes Craven felt the need to have the rape scene in the one from the late 70's.
I really don't see why you are so vocal about this as you haven't seen it. You didn't watch the scene, get disgusted, and walk out. You read about the scene and got disgusted (for some reason) then felt the need to come bother everyone who liked the movie with your views as if anyone cares.

Haha, you think you owned me? Give me a break, BKB.

First of all, yeah, the intensity of the rape scene does make a difference. There are films that have elements of rape but the scene is never shown, just the aftermath of what the victim looks like. It still counts as rape, but the intensity is 0%. Second of all, you'll have to show me every single review you've read that complained about the rape scene before I can take your side seriously. Third? The mere fact that you can't get it through your head that the film is a REMAKE of another film in which the same rape scene was featured boggles my mind. The director of this film, in order to make a proper remake (especially since Craven was on board for this project and the original), had to put in that scene, and I'm sure he could give two ##### whether an internet nerd like you feels strongly about a 10-second rape scene featuring no nudity.

That's why!! I was really looking foreward to this, but for the Love of God, sucking the breast milk out of womans tits against her will???