David Leitner

This movie makes no sense. Are we supposed to cheer for Clay, after he has killed and maimed countless agents and officers just doing their job ? I would imagine most of these heroes also have families. I am usually a fan of these movies and am more than willing to suspend my imagination, but usually the vigilante is killing drug lord minions or mobsters, not our finest in uniform. This movie makes no moral or ethical point. I was cheering for Clay's brain matter to be splattered, alas no such luck.

A film that is an exercise in thought, depravity, and constitution, Salo examines exploitation and the imbalances of power in our economic and political systems. More than that is asks what is the true cost of looking at the other, whether it is the laborer, earth, or body as a mere commodity. It is a film is as horrific in its visceral brutality as it is decadant and opulent, and as misunderstood as its brilliant, visionary director. It has a well deserved reputation which proceeds it. It is not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach. I understand not be capable of watching the film because of its abhorrent and grotesque imagery and disturbing themes, but denying its relevance is lazy and more than that, its reckless and irresponsible. Salo holds up a mirror and beckons us a glance at our reflection. Repulsed with what we see we have the audacity to blame the mirror rather than ourselves. Some say ignorance is bliss, but it is far more insidious than that, it is complicit.

I am not so much going to criticize the movie or the part I saw, but rather the hypocrisy of the Acamedy and critics. I have watched some of the most controversial films ever made that examine themes of exploitation and abuse and these films are met with derision and face excessive censorship. This film is nominated and won numerous oscars, yet I do not see how it is less controversial and transgressive than a Serbian Film ? I do not understand this film at all and actual appreciate other exploitation films that do not parade around as being liberating or feminist and that do not get preferential treatment. The Acamedy has lost all credibility, lets find another way to reward truly ambitious film making and also films that own their identifies. The only poor things are us the audience. More like poor taste.

A bold film that weaves dark comedy and body horror seamlessly, Tusk may be a challenge for mainstream audiences, but deserves it a round of applause for its ambition. It is a difficult film to recommend for many, but for fans of this genre it is a well done piece of cinema.

Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling could not make a Hyena laugh and lacked any chemistry. Films like this are atrocities and that lead me to wonder what did the audience do to derserve this ? The movie was poorly done in every aspect and makes one appreciate " comedies " with any good writing and any actors with a comedic bone in their body. As I reflect on the two hours of my life I will never get back, I mourn this butchering of the buddy/cop genre.

A film that I would only recommend to the most heartfelt of masochist, and this is coming from a guy who has watched A Serbian Film, The Human Centipede, and recently orded Salo. Its writing is as criminal as its execution, with acting that makes Keanu Reeves look like Sir Laurence Olivier. The only laughs are totally unintentional. A new low for Eddie Murphy, step aside Norbit.

Although this film gave me my gore fix, it was neither shocking nor horrifying. The plot had plenty of lapses which left me scratching my head and rolling my eyes. The ending was not original and left me with more questions and than I had in earlier in the film.Far from the worst horror film I have seen I would recommend getting your gore fix elsewhere, maybe an Eli Roth marathon is on ?